Richard's illegitimate children

http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/
Not that I am taking this blog post as gospel but I am wondering when did Richard have his other children? The author of this blog seems to imply that they could have been born after Richard's marraige......

What a load of rubbish! Sorry.
Marie

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/
> Not that I am taking this blog post as gospel but I am wondering when did Richard have his other children? The author of this blog seems to imply that they could have been born after Richard's marraige......
>

Hah! No evidence then? I will be pleased if it isn't true. Again, is it Hick's speculation?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:48 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> What a load of rubbish! Sorry.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/
> > Not that I am taking this blog post as gospel but I am wondering when did Richard have his other children? The author of this blog seems to imply that they could have been born after Richard's marraige......
> >
>
>

Hi,
 Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
I am not impressed by either of them.
Loyaulte me Lie
Chris

Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
Marie

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> I am not impressed by either of them.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Chris
>
>
>

He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children



Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
Marie

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> I am not impressed by either of them.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Chris
>
>
>

Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!

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

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> Marie
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Veering off of this in Edward's direction, I just finished reading (online!)
Ashon-Hll's book about John Howard. He speculates about Howard's
relationship with both Edward and Richard; in the course of this, he also
meditates about Edward's reputation as a lady's man, and points out that,
for all the talk about him, Edward can be definitely linked only with four
women, by name, and that a lot of the talk about his randiness has rather
vague roots and origins. I'm not completely buying his conclusions, but he
does bring up a point worth exploring, and it makes me think about what
people said about Cleopatra -- and I paraphrase, on this, the late great
Will Cuppy, in his _Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_: that
forall the talk you can
only really link her name with bald old Caesar or silly old Mark Antony.

(Will Cuppy has a chapter on Henry VIII in this wonderful collection of
mini-bios. About Catherine of Aragon he says: "She seldom smiled.
(Footnote: Why should she? The joke was on her.)"

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he
> must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard
> didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm
> pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters
> after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would
> like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual
> initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , C HOLMES
> <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage
> to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as
> Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been
> for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the
> time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities or had any of illegitimate children?

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

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> Marie
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Just what every little brother wants.

Richard was born in 1452, so he'd have been 17 in 1469. Isn't that a bit late for a male in the 15th century to lose his virginity?

Perhaps Richard took those Arthurian legends a little too much to heart? Or maybe he was just shy for his age. Or monkish. Or virtuous. Or backward. Or stubborn. Or devoted to Anne....

~Weds

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?

Weds, OR all of the above! Specially Anne. Please y'all give me Anne!

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 
Just what every little brother wants.

Richard was born in 1452, so he'd have been 17 in 1469. Isn't that a bit late for a male in the 15th century to lose his virginity?

Perhaps Richard took those Arthurian legends a little too much to heart? Or maybe he was just shy for his age. Or monkish. Or virtuous. Or backward. Or stubborn. Or devoted to Anne....

~Weds

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?

Where does this Hicks guy get his information? He knows where Richard's children were conceived AND that he was divorcing Anne? Does he think that Richard was a good guy for taking care of all his chidren - or is there a dark cloud in that silver lining?

I'm so glad I didn't order the book. Thank God for the Amazon reviews. Maire.

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
> It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I think he also says Anne was not as nice as she is made out to be (haven't read his books,just going by this blog. Correct me if I am wrong!)..... Apparently John of Gloucester was not made Captain of Calais till Anne was dead! She must have been evil step-mother and Richard hen-pecked!




________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 
Where does this Hicks guy get his information? He knows where Richard's children were conceived AND that he was divorcing Anne? Does he think that Richard was a good guy for taking care of all his chidren - or is there a dark cloud in that silver lining?

I'm so glad I didn't order the book. Thank God for the Amazon reviews. Maire.

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
> It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

How can Hick's positively know that Richard never visited Pontefract before his marriage? Not every journey of his would have been documented. It really is a nonsense when historians come out with stuff like this....Eileen
On 10 Dec 2012, at 15:39, Richard Yahoo wrote:

> What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities or had any of illegitimate children?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> > He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hicks must be right...it would make perfect sense to divorce a dying woman.....:0/ Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Where does this Hicks guy get his information? He knows where Richard's children were conceived AND that he was divorcing Anne? Does he think that Richard was a good guy for taking care of all his chidren - or is there a dark cloud in that silver lining?
>
> I'm so glad I didn't order the book. Thank God for the Amazon reviews. Maire.
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
> > It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Ishita wrote:
>
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/
> Not that I am taking this blog post as gospel but I am wondering when did Richard have his other children? The author of this blog seems to imply that they could have been born after Richard's marraige......
>
Carol responds:

Just to add one more word to what has already been said: Even Dominic Mancini, who suspected that Richard had "done away with" his nephews, speaks of "the good reputation of his private life and public activities," which suggests that he was faithful to his wife.

Carol

Does Hick also talk about R lusting after Elizabeth of York?

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

On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:28 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Hicks must be right...it would make perfect sense to divorce a dying woman.....:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > Where does this Hicks guy get his information? He knows where Richard's children were conceived AND that he was divorcing Anne? Does he think that Richard was a good guy for taking care of all his chidren - or is there a dark cloud in that silver lining?
> >
> > I'm so glad I didn't order the book. Thank God for the Amazon reviews. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
> > > It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

According to Hicks, was Richard divorcing Anne while poisoning her?

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I think he also says Anne was not as nice as she is made out to be (haven't read his books,just going by this blog. Correct me if I am wrong!)..... Apparently John of Gloucester was not made Captain of Calais till Anne was dead! She must have been evil step-mother and Richard hen-pecked!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
> Where does this Hicks guy get his information? He knows where Richard's children were conceived AND that he was divorcing Anne? Does he think that Richard was a good guy for taking care of all his chidren - or is there a dark cloud in that silver lining?
>
> I'm so glad I didn't order the book. Thank God for the Amazon reviews. Maire.
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, please do so when you have a minute.
> > It seems the blog I quoted is heavily reliant on Hicks. I remember in another post the blogger quoted Hicks about Anne and Richard's marriage being illegitimate and that R was trying to divorce a dying Anne.....( my post was under Which Book). Poor Richard, he cannot seem to catch a break!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hick's book on Anne Neville. A guide.
Take one sheet at a time and tear it out.
When all pages are removed, tie together and hang in an outside convenience for use by anyone passing [pun intended on passing].
Paul

On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:22, eileen bates wrote:

> How can Hick's positively know that Richard never visited Pontefract before his marriage? Not every journey of his would have been documented. It really is a nonsense when historians come out with stuff like this....Eileen
> On 10 Dec 2012, at 15:39, Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
>> What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities or had any of illegitimate children?
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> www.ishitabandyo.com
>> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>>> He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: mariewalsh2003
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>>>
>>> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it, presided over by big brother?
>>> Marie
>>>
>>> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
>>>> Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
>>>> Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
>>>> I am not impressed by either of them.
>>>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Ishita

Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
can't be entirely ruled out.

Karen

From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:27 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
children






What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities
or had any of illegitimate children?

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

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> > wrote:

> He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
> Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must
have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit
Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure
Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had
got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a
very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it,
presided over by big brother?
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , C HOLMES
<christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to
Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain
of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for
Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time
and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
Regards
Loyaulte me Lie
Don't know if this will pass moderator.
Chris

Well, Clarence made up in other ways what he lacked in disloyalty to his wife.

What is the evidence that Richard had illegitimate children while married? Maire.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita
>
> Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> can't be entirely ruled out.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:27 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
> children
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities
> or had any of illegitimate children?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...
> <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> > wrote:
>
> > He could have been born there but conceived elsewhere.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Hicks' argument is that, since John was also called John of Pomfret, he must
> have been born - ergo also conceived - at Pontefract, and Richard didn't visit
> Pontefract before his marriage. I don't think he's right. I'm pretty sure
> Richard and Edward stopped there in 1469 gathering supporters after Edward had
> got away from Middleham, but I can check if anybody would like. It would be a
> very believable scenario for Richard's sexual initiation though, wouldn't it,
> presided over by big brother?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , C HOLMES
> <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Richard's illegitimate children must have been born before his marriage to
> Anne as their ages when he became King and the post he gave to John as Captain
> of Calais and the marriage he arranged for Katherine must have been for
> Katherine 15/16 years and John 14yrs.
> > > Their was no scandal or rumours about Richard and Annes marriage at the time
> and it would seem he kept his marriage vows.
> > > Hicks and Weir seem determined that Richard could not do anything good.
> > > I am not impressed by either of them.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maria Torres wrote:

"Veering off of this in Edward's direction, I just finished reading
(online!) Ashon-Hll's book about John Howard. He speculates about Howard's
relationship with both Edward and Richard; in the course of this, he also
meditates about Edward's reputation as a lady's man, and points out that,
for all the talk about him, Edward can be definitely linked only with four
women, by name, and that a lot of the talk about his randiness has rather
vague roots and origins. I'm not completely buying his conclusions, but he
does bring up a point worth exploring, and it makes me think about what
people said about Cleopatra -- and I paraphrase, on this, the late great ill
Cuppy, in his _Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_: that for all the
talk you can only really link her name with bald old Caesar or silly old
Mark Antony.
(Will Cuppy has a chapter on Henry VIII in this wonderful collection of
mini-bios. About Catherine of Aragon he says: "She seldom smiled.
(Footnote: Why should she? The joke was on her.)"

Males have been known to, um, exagerate about their conquests nowadays and I
imagine the same held true then. As king, Edward would certainly have enough
opportunity, IF he really wanted to do anything, so one would think there'd
be more than just four known partners. It may have been that Edward felt
more relaxed in the presence of females, therefore preferred to be in their
company and, gossips being gossips, there could only be ONE reason for
that...
Doug
ps: thanks for reminding about Will Cuppy! His pieces helped get me
interested in history by showing me history wasn't, and didn't have to be, a
dry recital of dates and events!

Absolutely, about Cuppy - I "met" him when I was about 12, and have loved
him ever since.

You can find DECLINE AND FALL OF PRACTICALLY EVERYBODY in Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=mmROwL4V28oC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PP1

It's a lot of fun, and Cuppy was very good with the research available to h
im.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Maria Torres wrote:
>
> "Veering off of this in Edward's direction, I just finished reading
> (online!) Ashon-Hll's book about John Howard. He speculates about Howard's
> relationship with both Edward and Richard; in the course of this, he also
> meditates about Edward's reputation as a lady's man, and points out that,
> for all the talk about him, Edward can be definitely linked only with four
> women, by name, and that a lot of the talk about his randiness has rather
> vague roots and origins. I'm not completely buying his conclusions, but he
> does bring up a point worth exploring, and it makes me think about what
> people said about Cleopatra -- and I paraphrase, on this, the late great
> ill
> Cuppy, in his _Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_: that for all
> the
> talk you can only really link her name with bald old Caesar or silly old
> Mark Antony.
> (Will Cuppy has a chapter on Henry VIII in this wonderful collection of
> mini-bios. About Catherine of Aragon he says: "She seldom smiled.
> (Footnote: Why should she? The joke was on her.)"
>
> Males have been known to, um, exagerate about their conquests nowadays and
> I
> imagine the same held true then. As king, Edward would certainly have
> enough
> opportunity, IF he really wanted to do anything, so one would think
> there'd
> be more than just four known partners. It may have been that Edward felt
> more relaxed in the presence of females, therefore preferred to be in
> their
> company and, gossips being gossips, there could only be ONE reason for
> that...
> Doug
> ps: thanks for reminding about Will Cuppy! His pieces helped get me
> interested in history by showing me history wasn't, and didn't have to be,
> a
> dry recital of dates and events!
>
>
>

At least Clarence redeems himself on this account.
About Richard's children, the younger could have been conceived before his marriage and born after?

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

On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:21 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Well, Clarence made up in other ways what he lacked in disloyalty to his wife.
>
> What is the evidence that Richard had illegitimate children while married? Maire.
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita
> >
> > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > can't be entirely ruled out.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:27 -0500
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
> > children
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities
> > or had any of illegitimate children?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Anything is possible but that would surely have made Richard's honeymoon period a bit tense!! Maire.

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> At least Clarence redeems himself on this account.
> About Richard's children, the younger could have been conceived before his marriage and born after?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:21 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> > Well, Clarence made up in other ways what he lacked in disloyalty to his wife.
> >
> > What is the evidence that Richard had illegitimate children while married? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > > can't be entirely ruled out.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:27 -0500
> > > To: ""
> > > <>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
> > > children
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What about Clarence? Do we know whether he shared his brothers' proclivities
> > > or had any of illegitimate children?
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
Paul

On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> Regards
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....

Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...

Eileen






--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> Paul
>
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > Regards
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>
> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > Regards
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Eileen,
  It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would  have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can  check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 
Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>
> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > Regards
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Maire

So far as I know, there's no clear evidence of when either of the children
were born. We can make educated guesses and extrapolate from other dates in
their lives, but that's about it. They may have both been born before his
marriage. Or after. Or one before and one after.

Karen

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:21:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children






Well, Clarence made up in other ways what he lacked in disloyalty to his
wife.

What is the evidence that Richard had illegitimate children while married?
Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita
>
> Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> can't be entirely ruled out.
>
> Karen

Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.

Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?

Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>   It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would  have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can  check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
> Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> >
> > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).

----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children



Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.

Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?

Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
> Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
> Â
> Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> >
> > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen,     I too find it innapropriate for it to be on Society web site but you know some of these academics ( nameless) who say we must give a voice to all who write about the period (this is intended as sarcastic ) I wouldn't give it toilet room. Hope I don't get into trouble with the Society.
Loyaulte me Lie
Chris


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 17:43
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>
> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > Regards
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Hi All ,
 I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
Hope this clarifies it to all.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).

----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children

Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.

Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
> Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
> Â
> Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> >
> > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.

Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All ,
>  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> Hope this clarifies it to all.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
>
> Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
> Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
>
> Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen,
> > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > >
> > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Amen to that.
You have to be a member or the society to be able to read the article?

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

On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> > I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Well it's one thing to be fair and allow opinions from the other side, as it were, but totally another when something can be proven to be factually inaccurate. 
 
 


________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:10
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children

 
Eileen,     I too find it innapropriate for it to be on Society web site but you know some of these academics ( nameless) who say we must give a voice to all who write about the period (this is intended as sarcastic ) I wouldn't give it toilet room. Hope I don't get into trouble with the Society.
Loyaulte me Lie
Chris


________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 17:43
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>
> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > Regards
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi You do not have to be a member of the society to read it.
Chris


________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:52
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

Amen to that.
You have to be a member or the society to be able to read the article?

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

On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> > I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi Marie ,
We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
Loyaulte me Lie
Best Wishes
 Christine
 


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Ã It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There wouldà have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You canà check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Maire...the last thing I would want is to put you off from rejoining the Society. The Bulletin is chocabloc with good reading...and the most recent edition was the best I have ever read...also the new members names took up two pages.....I just think it is a shame about Hicks' article as its all very well to publish different opinions but when it is by someone who comes across as hating Richard...well its too bad...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> >
> > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All ,
> > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > >
> > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen,
> > > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > >
> > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie wrote the article in the Ricardian which refuted what Hicks had said about Richard and Anne's marriage. Another myth Hicks perpetuates in his book "Richard 111 The Making of a Myth", well I think that is the title as I cannot check because I gave my copy to a charity shop in disgust, is that there was no Woodville plot in 1483. I think that there is evidence to show that they were plotting. Anthony, Lord Rivers letter to his agent Dymock asking for clarification of his right to retain men in Wales and giving his authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to the Marquis of Dorset. Also he stayed in Ludlow for about 15 days after Edward died supposedly to celebrate St George's day.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Christine...I am reading an interesting little book borrowed from the Barton Library about Edward of Middleham by P W Hammond. I have to return it soon..before the end of December....you might be interested in borrowing it as it has a chapter on Edwards possible burial place. Eileen

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie ,
> We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
> Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Best Wishes
>  Christine
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
>
> I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> >
> > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All ,
> > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > >
> > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen,
> > > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > >
> > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for your response, Eileen!

It's just that if you go on the website and look at the biographical info called "Richard and Anne", his article is right there - front and center. I was shocked that a Society dedicated to Richard the Third would print this. Why not simply have a section called "the loyal opposition" or "Historians who hate Richard" or something like that so that people know what they are getting into? Very strange.

But again, thank you for your kind words and I'll try to keep my options open! When I was a kid I loved getting the Richardian in the mail! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maire...the last thing I would want is to put you off from rejoining the Society. The Bulletin is chocabloc with good reading...and the most recent edition was the best I have ever read...also the new members names took up two pages.....I just think it is a shame about Hicks' article as its all very well to publish different opinions but when it is by someone who comes across as hating Richard...well its too bad...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> > >
> > > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All ,
> > > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > > >
> > > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen,
> > > > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I tried to sign up at the American Branch of the R3 society but there was no link to pay and it was just strange layout. Can I be a member of the parent organization and still get the bulletins from the American branch?
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maire...the last thing I would want is to put you off from rejoining the Society. The Bulletin is chocabloc with good reading...and the most recent edition was the best I have ever read...also the new members names took up two pages.....I just think it is a shame about Hicks' article as its all very well to publish different opinions but when it is by someone who comes across as hating Richard...well its too bad...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> > >
> > > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All ,
> > > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > > >
> > > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen,
> > > > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Christine, I am an American and once belonged to a group that met in New York City at the Explorers Club (a gigantic stuffed polar bear met you as you entered). I have been to the Yorkshire website which I find delightful. I especially loved that Richard was wearing a Santa's hat. It was very becoming.

I will take your advice and really think about it. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Christine...I am reading an interesting little book borrowed from the Barton Library about Edward of Middleham by P W Hammond. I have to return it soon..before the end of December....you might be interested in borrowing it as it has a chapter on Edwards possible burial place. Eileen
>
> --- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie ,
> > We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
> > Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Best Wishes
> >  Christine
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> > >
> > > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All ,
> > > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > > >
> > > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen,
> > > > > Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks Eileen I think I have read it, trouble is I have read that much stuff on Richard I can't remember what I have and havn't read.
My book shelves are full of books on Richard, some I do not give house room to though.
thanks again I will check it out.
Loyaulte me Lie
Best Wishes
Christine
 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 21:03
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

Hi Christine...I am reading an interesting little book borrowed from the Barton Library about Edward of Middleham by P W Hammond. I have to return it soon..before the end of December....you might be interested in borrowing it as it has a chapter on Edwards possible burial place. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie ,
> We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
> Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Best Wishes
>  Christine
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
>
> I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> >
> > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Allà,
> > > àI have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archivesàof the dispensationàgranted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > Hicks seems to me to àhave a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > >
> > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen,
> > > > Ã’â¬a It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There wouldÃ’â¬a have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You canÃ’â¬a check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > >
> > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

In message <ka87h8+ep9o@...>, bandyoi <bandyoi@...> writes
>
>I tried to sign up at the American Branch of the R3 society but there
>was no link to pay and it was just strange layout. Can I be a member of
>the parent organization and still get the bulletins from the American
>branch?

Hi

Yes you can join the R3 Society, anyone from anywhere can. Once a member
you are entitled to quarterly Bulletins & the annual Ricardian.

If you go to the website www.richardiii.net, click on the Membership
tab on the left hand menu, you will find how to join.

The American branch is a branch of the R3 Society & like all branches
you need to already be a member of the Society to join. To receive their
(AB) publications you will have to become a member of the branch.

Hope that helps

cheers

Jac

OK Christine....Its always worth remembering the Barton Library....especially for articles...Eileen

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Eileen I think I have read it, trouble is I have read that much stuff on Richard I can't remember what I have and havn't read.
> My book shelves are full of books on Richard, some I do not give house room to though.
> thanks again I will check it out.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Best Wishes
> Christine
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 21:03
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>  
>
> Hi Christine...I am reading an interesting little book borrowed from the Barton Library about Edward of Middleham by P W Hammond. I have to return it soon..before the end of December....you might be interested in borrowing it as it has a chapter on Edwards possible burial place. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie ,
> > We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
> > Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Best Wishes
> >  Christine
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
> > >
> > > Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All ,
> > > >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > > > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > > > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > > > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > >
> > > > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> > > >
> > > > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen,
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There wouldÃÆ'‚ have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You canÃÆ'‚ check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

How do I join please. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
Sender:
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:34:38
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children

Hi Marie ,
We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
Loyaulte me Lie
Best Wishes
 Christine
 


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 

I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>
> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All ,
> >  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> > So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> > Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> > Hope this clarifies it to all.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> > Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
> >
> > Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > > Ã It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
> > > He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There wouldà have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You canà check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã
> > > Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
> > > >
> > > > Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
> > > > Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Don't know if this will pass moderator.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Jac, thank you! I will do it right away.

--- On Tue, 12/11/12, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:

From: jacqui <jacqui@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
To:
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 1:34 PM
















 









In message <ka87h8+ep9o@...>, bandyoi <bandyoi@...> writes

>

>I tried to sign up at the American Branch of the R3 society but there

>was no link to pay and it was just strange layout. Can I be a member of

>the parent organization and still get the bulletins from the American

>branch?



Hi



Yes you can join the R3 Society, anyone from anywhere can. Once a member

you are entitled to quarterly Bulletins & the annual Ricardian.



If you go to the website www.richardiii.net, click on the Membership

tab on the left hand menu, you will find how to join.



The American branch is a branch of the R3 Society & like all branches

you need to already be a member of the Society to join. To receive their

(AB) publications you will have to become a member of the branch.



Hope that helps



cheers



Jac

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita
>
> Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> can't be entirely ruled out.
>
> Karen

Marie replies:
It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484, with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.

"ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote the article in the Ricardian which refuted what Hicks had said about Richard and Anne's marriage. Another myth Hicks perpetuates in his book "Richard 111 The Making of a Myth", well I think that is the title as I cannot check because I gave my copy to a charity shop in disgust, is that there was no Woodville plot in 1483. I think that there is evidence to show that they were plotting. Anthony, Lord Rivers letter to his agent Dymock asking for clarification of his right to retain men in Wales and giving his authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to the Marquis of Dorset. Also he stayed in Ludlow for about 15 days after Edward died supposedly to celebrate St George's day.

Carol responds:

I agree with you that the plot was real. Other evidence includes the failure of the queen to inform Richard of his brother's death and his own appointment as Protector, and the bills or whatever you call them passed in council in the name of the king's "uterine brother" (Dorset). It looks as if Richard and his Protectorate had no place in their plans. But why do you think that Anthony Woodville's remaining so long in Ludlow is evidence for the plot? Other people have used it as evidence that there was none--or, at least, that Anthony Woodville wasn't involved in it. (That last seems most unlikely given his moving young Edward fifteen miles closer to London rather than meeting up with his uncle Richard as planned, but I still don't see how his delay in Ludlow helps our side of the argument.)

Carol

Ishita wrote:
>
>
> I tried to sign up at the American Branch of the R3 society but there was no link to pay and it was just strange layout. Can I be a member of the parent organization and still get the bulletins from the American branch?

Carol responds:

You can't read the American branch Members Only section unless you join that branch, but don't worry. You just sign up and they bill you later. Or you can do it the old-fashioned way by printing out the application and mailing a check.

I joined right after the Leicester find. Still haven't received any Ricardians, but I can read the Ricardian Bulletins online. (If you find broken links, report them. They're redesigning the site.)

Carol

In message
<1355262386.95390.YahooMailClassic@...>, Ishita
Bandyo <bandyoi@...> writes
>Jac, thank you! I will do it right away.

*** You are welcome Ishita:)

cheers

Jac

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie wrote the article in the Ricardian which refuted what Hicks had said about Richard and Anne's marriage. Another myth Hicks perpetuates in his book "Richard 111 The Making of a Myth", well I think that is the title as I cannot check because I gave my copy to a charity shop in disgust, is that there was no Woodville plot in 1483. I think that there is evidence to show that they were plotting. Anthony, Lord Rivers letter to his agent Dymock asking for clarification of his right to retain men in Wales and giving his authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to the Marquis of Dorset. Also he stayed in Ludlow for about 15 days after Edward died supposedly to celebrate St George's day.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you that the plot was real. Other evidence includes the failure of the queen to inform Richard of his brother's death and his own appointment as Protector, and the bills or whatever you call them passed in council in the name of the king's "uterine brother" (Dorset). It looks as if Richard and his Protectorate had no place in their plans. But why do you think that Anthony Woodville's remaining so long in Ludlow is evidence for the plot? Other people have used it as evidence that there was none--or, at least, that Anthony Woodville wasn't involved in it. (That last seems most unlikely given his moving young Edward fifteen miles closer to London rather than meeting up with his uncle Richard as planned, but I still don't see how his delay in Ludlow helps our side of the argument.)
>
> Carol
>Hi Carol

In his book on "The Death of Edward IV" Richard Collins says that other than sending a letter in Edward's name to Thomas Thoresby, the Mayor of Lynn, Rivers does nothing. He stays on in Ludlow until 24 August to celebrate St George's day. Apparently Rivers was created a Knight of the Garter by Edward IV and took the chivalric aspect of the order very seriously. Collins says Rivers was quite correct to observe the feast because St George was the patron saint of the Order. Then he says "but it is surely strange that even so important a rite could take precedence over the funeral of the head of the Order, who was also River's liege lord and brother in law to boot. When we add that the funeral was to take place in the Chapel of St George at Windsor, the very heart of the Order - it begins to pass all understanding! Rivers' procrastination is a flagrant and transparent excuse to do nothing. But Why do nothing?"

At the end of the next chapter he goes on to explain that Richard was a dangerous rival to the Woodvilles especially as he had been appointed as Lord Protector of the Realm. This appointment would come to an end once Edward was crowned so it was necessary to set the date of the Coronation for as soon as possible "In the meantime, the new King must be kept away from Richard, the Council and preferably anyone else until the last moment to prevent tampering with the plan. That is why Rivers stayed in Ludlow".

Regards
Mary

Marie

My words were "Clarence had no known illegitimate children" not "Clarence
had no illegitimate children". I wasn't ruling it out. I'm not sure I follow
your 'we wouldn't have known about Richard'sŠif he hadn't become king'. We
know of other noblemen's illegitimate children. Her marriage (by itself)
isn't enough to establish (roughly) Katherine's age, but the settlement of
property probably is; the same process has been used to establish (roughly)
Margaret Nevill's likely birth year. I'm not sure what the issue would be if
she were younger, though, or if John were born after Richard's marriage. If
Richard was entirely faithful to Anne, then that's what he was, and good on
him. If he wasn't, that shouldn't alter anyone's view of him, surely.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:24:29 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita
>
> Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> can't be entirely ruled out.
>
> Karen

Marie replies:
It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484,
with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon
for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.

Would it be ungracious or unfair of me to think that if George had fathered illegitimate children, he wouldn't have acknowledged them or supported them? So if George had become king, we still wouldn't know about them?

I just don't see George having much compassion or caring for anyone he used.

~Weds


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

> It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484, with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
>

Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative. That he didn't acknowledge
any illegitimate children isn't evidence that Clarence had them and refused
to acknowledge them, though. Any more than Richard acknowledging two
illegitimate children isn't evidence that he had more that he didn't
acknowledge. We can only go on what's been recorded. Just as Richard might
have been deeply in love, and deeply committed, to Anne, George may have
been deeply in love, and deeply committed, to Isobel. His grief at her
death seems to suggest that he thought of her fondly, at the very least.

Karen

From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:18:31 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children






Would it be ungracious or unfair of me to think that if George had fathered
illegitimate children, he wouldn't have acknowledged them or supported them?
So if George had become king, we still wouldn't know about them?

I just don't see George having much compassion or caring for anyone he used.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484, with
property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon for
English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
>

No excuse for what he writes, but one must not forget that Clarence is his hero, though why he blames Richard for what George did to himself I do not understand. His thesis at university was about Clarence, the basis for his first, turgidly written, book. And he studied under Charles Ross.
I guess if you are indoctrinated by a Nazi you become one!
Paul

On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:26, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi All ,
> I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
> So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
> Hicks seems to me to have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
> Hope this clarifies it to all.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
> Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
> Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
>
> Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen,
>> Â It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
>> He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There would have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You can check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>>>
>>> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
>>> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>>>
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>>>> Don't know if this will pass moderator.
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, the Society needs a lot more people who care about Richard and put him first before Society.
Paul



On 11 Dec 2012, at 20:34, C HOLMES wrote:

> Hi Marie ,
> We need all the support we can get for Richard never mind the academics . We need people who will speak up at annual general meetings for instance and challenge them.
> Please join I don't think you will regret it, then you can join one of the branches, my Yorkshire branch would welcome you where ever you live and they are a great bunch and do challenge at meetings. Also we have great meetings and organise trips out for instance we have arranged to go to Coverham Abbey next year which is not open to the public and is one of the possible burial places for Richard and Anne's son Edward.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Best Wishes
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:58
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
> I have been thinking about rejoining the Society after a gap of 25 years but if they are going to put up awful, highly debatable stuff about Richard, why should I give them any money? I was shocked to see the article in question so easy to access. Why would anybody join the Society if they are smearing their own hero? Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Stephen and Christine for reiteration on this subject...I was a bit wooly on whether there was more than one dispensation required and that both/all of them had been found although I definitely knew one of them had been found. I know Marie has wrote many times on this subject.....I hope she never tires of it.
>>
>> Christine ....I have not yet read Peter Hammond's article...I will do so later on tonight...thank you for pointing it out. And God Bless Peter D Clarke....with people like this on Richard's side and intent on clearing up all the clap trap that has gone on and continues to....kudos to them..every one....Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All ,
>>>  I have said this before, that there is an article on the Society website re Richard's marriage dispensation by Peter Hammond writting about the discovery by Peter D Clarke in the vatican archives of the dispensation granted to Richard and Anne as early as 22nd April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degree of kinship, for which relationship they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted.
>>> So thats available for all to see on the Richard 111 Society Website.
>>> Hicks seems to me to  have a bee in his bonnet about Richard, it's as if Richard had done something to him personally.
>>> Hope this clarifies it to all.
>>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>> Christine
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 19:02
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>> Marie has blown Hicks out of the water over the dispensations. There are letters about the Portugese double marriage plans, trumping his "divorce/ niece-marriage plans" nonsense. Sadly, he seems determined to quote sources he knows to be unreliable like "two years in the womb" Rows, "Edward died at 53" More. He also wilfully takes the first half of More's "priest story" as gospel but rejects the second half - because those bones (of whatever quantity, age, vintage, gender or species were found where the priest left them (conveniently), before moving them on (inconveniently).
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: EileenB
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>>>
>>> Ishita...what I find astonishing is that this article is on Richard lll Society site.
>>>
>>> Well Im not an expert, but yes, I would have thought that the clergy would have known about Anne and Richard;s marriage being invalid if that was the case. After all it did not take place secretly but openly...( probably in St Stephen's Chapel). However there are much more learned people on here who can probably answer you better than I....for example Marie is very up on the dispensations and it is my understanding that the dispensations were issued. And yes Hicks should know this and if this is a fact why is the article still on the website...?
>>>
>>> Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eileen,
>>>> Ã It seems he does heap all the accusations on R3!
>>>> He agrees that R3 was indeed planning to marry E of Y? I don't understand why R3 would make Anne his queen if he and the populace were aware that their marriage was invalid. There wouldà have been protest from the clergy, don't you think? And isn't there proof that they did have dispensation? Hicks should be aware of that.......I commented on the blog ( that I provided the hyperlink to) and it looks like the author agrees with all the Hicks hypotheses. He also says that Kendall's sources are unreliable while Hicks sources are proven to be correct. You canà check it out.If someone who is more knowledgeable comments, it might make him see some reason......It seems we are banging our head on a closed door:(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ã
>>>> Sorry...first line should have read ..what I find hard to understand is that the Society........Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What I find that to understand is that the Society have included an article by Hicks of all people, on their site where he maintains that Edward of Middleham was iligitimate. He writes that "Richard was aware that his and Anne's marriage and his son's legitimacy were void. He contrived however to conceal it and to continue living with Anne as man and wife...and to secure her coronation as Queen and their son's elevation first as Earl of Salisbury and then as Prince of Wales"....
>>>>>
>>>>> Later "he did not need her Warwick inheritance anymore and it was no wonder as Crowland reports had he considered a divorce and remarriage "(Me: why does Hicks say Richard considered a divorce if he "was aware" that the marriage was invalid. Why bother....with Eof M dead why not just announce that the marriage was invalid?)......"His preferred candidate was EofY herself...he knew well that his marriage had never been valid...but no divorce was necessary as Anne's health declined"...
>>>>> Hicks mentions that Anne's death came at such a convenient time that it was not surprising there were rumours that Richard had poisoned Anne...although he does not go the full whack to agree...
>>>>>
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right Chris, and thanks for making me smile about Hicks for once!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11 Dec 2012, at 11:58, C HOLMES wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi I like it Paul though I don't think it's good enough to wipe my backside on.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>>>>>> Don't know if this will pass moderator.
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul

So, if a person from history is someone's 'hero' we can't trust their words?

Last time I read the book, there was no casting of blame onto Richard for
Clarence's downfall. There was the suggestion that he didn't do anything to
help his brother, but a lot of people didn't. So Richard's hardly being
singled out for particular scorn there.

Karen

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:17:49 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
children






No excuse for what he writes, but one must not forget that Clarence is his
hero, though why he blames Richard for what George did to himself I do not
understand. His thesis at university was about Clarence, the basis for his
first, turgidly written, book. And he studied under Charles Ross.
I guess if you are indoctrinated by a Nazi you become one!
Paul

Karen, I myself think Clarence could have been faithful to Isabella. If we know about pious Anthony Woodville's bastards, we would have know about a royal prince's too.
I have to say, I feel sorry for Clarence on so many account. He was not evil per se just stupid and confused!
Most of all he did not deserve to die at his brother's order. To me, it seems he was an overgrown school boy who was over his head!
As far as my limited knowledge goes, Richard did plead with E4 to spare Clarence's life. As did Cecily, Margaret and Duchess of Suffolk.......I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
Any thoughts, people?

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

On Dec 12, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> Paul
>
> So, if a person from history is someone's 'hero' we can't trust their words?
>
> Last time I read the book, there was no casting of blame onto Richard for
> Clarence's downfall. There was the suggestion that he didn't do anything to
> help his brother, but a lot of people didn't. So Richard's hardly being
> singled out for particular scorn there.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:17:49 +0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
> children
>
> No excuse for what he writes, but one must not forget that Clarence is his
> hero, though why he blames Richard for what George did to himself I do not
> understand. His thesis at university was about Clarence, the basis for his
> first, turgidly written, book. And he studied under Charles Ross.
> I guess if you are indoctrinated by a Nazi you become one!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

[snip]

I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> Any thoughts, people?


Katy:

Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.

(Apologies if this appears twice -- Yahoo seems to have eaten the first one.)

A better, more dramatic story, and Richard has to be blamed for as many deaths as possible.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 


--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

[snip]

I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> Any thoughts, people?

Katy:

Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.

(Apologies if this appears twice -- Yahoo seems to have eaten the first one.)

I'm reminded of The Duchess of Malfi. By the end, the stage is littered with dead bodies :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children


 


--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

[snip]

I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> Any thoughts, people?

Katy:

Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.

(Apologies if this appears twice -- Yahoo seems to have eaten the first one.)

Mary wrote:
> In his book on "The Death of Edward IV" Richard Collins says that other than sending a letter in Edward's name to Thomas Thoresby, the Mayor of Lynn, Rivers does nothing. He stays on in Ludlow until 24 August to celebrate St George's day. Apparently Rivers was created a Knight of the Garter by Edward IV and took the chivalric aspect of the order very seriously. Collins says Rivers was quite correct to observe the feast because St George was the patron saint of the Order. Then he says "but it is surely strange that even so important a rite could take precedence over the funeral of the head of the Order, who was also River's liege lord and brother in law to boot. When we add that the funeral was to take place in the Chapel of St George at Windsor, the very heart of the Order - it begins to pass all understanding! Rivers' procrastination is a flagrant and transparent excuse to do nothing. But Why do nothing?"
>
> At the end of the next chapter he goes on to explain that Richard was a dangerous rival to the Woodvilles especially as he had been appointed as Lord Protector of the Realm. This appointment would come to an end once Edward was crowned so it was necessary to set the date of the Coronation for as soon as possible "In the meantime, the new King must be kept away from Richard, the Council and preferably anyone else until the last moment to prevent tampering with the plan. That is why Rivers stayed in Ludlow".

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. It also, of course, explains why Anthony Woodville sent Edward on to Stony Stratford (and all the other things we both mentioned earlier). Does Collins say anything else of interest, for example, about the wagonloads of arms?

Carol

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> My words were "Clarence had no known illegitimate children" not "Clarence
> had no illegitimate children". I wasn't ruling it out.

Marie replies:
I didn't say "Karen says he had no illegitimate children." I was merely responding to your suggestion that "he may have been the brother who was faithful to his wife" by pointing out that we have nothing at all to go on.
When I say we only know about Richard's children because he became king I mean that we have no references to them from the years when he was merely Duke of Gloucester; the sort of records that survive for kings do not exist for many private individuals from this period, no matter how exalted. Had Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of Gloucester and left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would have been mentioned there. We might even have a surviving enfeoffment of lands to the use of Katherine and whoever she would have married in that altrernative reality, but the survival of such things is very hit and miss. In actuality, of course, had Richard not taken the throne in 1483 his fate would probably have been more like Clarence's than the above.
We don't know about the bastards of very many noblemen of this period, and where we do the children tend to surface as adults, via their marriages (if female) or involvement in family feuds (if male). Clarence died very young without being able to leave a will, and no household records of his are extant, so if he had any bastards where would their existence be recorded?


I'm not sure I follow
> your 'we wouldn't have known about Richard'sŠif he hadn't become king'. We
> know of other noblemen's illegitimate children. Her marriage (by itself)
> isn't enough to establish (roughly) Katherine's age, but the settlement of
> property probably is; the same process has been used to establish (roughly)
> Margaret Nevill's likely birth year. I'm not sure what the issue would be if
> she were younger, though, or if John were born after Richard's marriage. If
> Richard was entirely faithful to Anne, then that's what he was, and good on
> him. If he wasn't, that shouldn't alter anyone's view of him, surely.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:24:29 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita
> >
> > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > can't be entirely ruled out.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Marie replies:
> It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
> because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
> illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
> after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484,
> with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon
> for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't twist my words, or are you trying a Hicks and Weir on me? :-)
What I meant was simply that if one is writing about one's hero, one is naturally going to be biased.
Paul

On 12 Dec 2012, at 13:35, Karen Clark wrote:

> Paul
>
> So, if a person from history is someone's 'hero' we can't trust their words?
>
> Last time I read the book, there was no casting of blame onto Richard for
> Clarence's downfall. There was the suggestion that he didn't do anything to
> help his brother, but a lot of people didn't. So Richard's hardly being
> singled out for particular scorn there.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:17:49 +0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's illegitimate
> children
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No excuse for what he writes, but one must not forget that Clarence is his
> hero, though why he blames Richard for what George did to himself I do not
> understand. His thesis at university was about Clarence, the basis for his
> first, turgidly written, book. And he studied under Charles Ross.
> I guess if you are indoctrinated by a Nazi you become one!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Ishita wrote:
>
> I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> > Any thoughts, people?
>
Katy responded:
>
> Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.

Carol adds:

Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.

Carol

Judy Thomson <wrote:
>
> I'm reminded of The Duchess of Malfi. By the end, the stage is littered with dead bodies :-)
>
Carol responds:

I blame Seneca. He converted drama from the high tragedy of the Greeks to melodrama, blood, and moralizing, and his influence on the Elizabethans was immense.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/senecadrama.html

Carol

Richard Schwyer wrote a piece on the play...let me know whether this loaded correctly.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children

 
Ishita wrote:
>
> I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> > Any thoughts, people?
>
Katy responded:
>
> Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.

Carol adds:

Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.

Carol

If you think about it E4 was the one who was steeped in blood from 16. Yet, none of the anti R historians point that out...... He was the one who killed Clarence, dragged people out of sanctuary and beheaded them, killed Earl of Desmond and his infant sons, had  poor Henry4 killed. And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair!

--- On Thu, 12/13/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
To:
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:19 AM
















 









Ishita wrote:

>

> I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!

> > Any thoughts, people?

>

Katy responded:

>

> Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.



Carol adds:



Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.



Carol

As I read through all the books on Richard, I keep coming to the same conclusion: it was Edward who was really bloodthirsty - or just pragmatic to the point of having very little conscience. And yet his little brother gets to suffer the slings and arrows while the big guy dies in bed. Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If you think about it E4 was the one who was steeped in blood from 16. Yet, none of the anti R historians point that out...... He was the one who killed Clarence, dragged people out of sanctuary and beheaded them, killed Earl of Desmond and his infant sons, had  poor Henry4 killed. And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair!
>
> --- On Thu, 12/13/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> To:
> Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:19 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ishita wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
>
> > > Any thoughts, people?
>
> >
>
> Katy responded:
>
> >
>
> > Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.
>
>
>
> Carol adds:
>
>
>
> Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie

No, you didn't use those words. What you did say was; "It would be very
uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children" when there was no
assumption on my part, just the words 'Clarence had no known illegitimate
children". It's the word 'known' in my sentence that makes it not an
assumption.

There are half a dozen noblemen of the time I could name off the top of my
head who had illegitimate children they acknowledged. Many of these we know
about from other sources than wills. That we don't know of any illegitimate
children of Clarence doesn't rule them out (as I said). By the same token,
we can't assume there were any.

You said:
"and no household records of [Clarence's] are extant,"

Now you've got me scratching my head. I've come across something to do with
Clarence's household. I'm pretty sure it was on google books along with
similar texts to do with Edward IV and others. Not that I think this is
going to help with the question of Clarence's possible offspring, but it's
bugging me now! I'm looking through my links and will turn to my hardcopies
if I don't have any luck.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:36:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> My words were "Clarence had no known illegitimate children" not "Clarence
> had no illegitimate children". I wasn't ruling it out.

Marie replies:
I didn't say "Karen says he had no illegitimate children." I was merely
responding to your suggestion that "he may have been the brother who was
faithful to his wife" by pointing out that we have nothing at all to go on.
When I say we only know about Richard's children because he became king I
mean that we have no references to them from the years when he was merely
Duke of Gloucester; the sort of records that survive for kings do not exist
for many private individuals from this period, no matter how exalted. Had
Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of Gloucester and
left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would have been
mentioned there. We might even have a surviving enfeoffment of lands to the
use of Katherine and whoever she would have married in that altrernative
reality, but the survival of such things is very hit and miss. In actuality,
of course, had Richard not taken the throne in 1483 his fate would probably
have been more like Clarence's than the above.
We don't know about the bastards of very many noblemen of this period, and
where we do the children tend to surface as adults, via their marriages (if
female) or involvement in family feuds (if male). Clarence died very young
without being able to leave a will, and no household records of his are
extant, so if he had any bastards where would their existence be recorded?

I'm not sure I follow
> your 'we wouldn't have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. We
> know of other noblemen's illegitimate children. Her marriage (by itself)
> isn't enough to establish (roughly) Katherine's age, but the settlement of
> property probably is; the same process has been used to establish (roughly)
> Margaret Nevill's likely birth year. I'm not sure what the issue would be if
> she were younger, though, or if John were born after Richard's marriage. If
> Richard was entirely faithful to Anne, then that's what he was, and good on
> him. If he wasn't, that shouldn't alter anyone's view of him, surely.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:24:29 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita
> >
> > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > can't be entirely ruled out.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Marie replies:
> It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
> because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
> illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
> after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484,
> with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon
> for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Shakespeare's piece was a medieval morality play, an end for his cycle of Wars of the Roses plays that started with Henry IV's usurpation that spoiled the legitimate succession, but in the end brought the "glory" of the Tudors to our "unhappy" land to make all good! Richard II, one of his most beautifully written plays, through the Henry's, Henry V being a glorification of a not very nice man who went to war with France to avoid , or delay the civil conflict at home, then the chaos of the Henry VI plays to one of his greatest creations, and the second longest part for an actor, the villainous Richard III. There is very little actual history in the whole cycle, the villainy of Richard, the heroism of Henry V, the Falstaff/ young Henry relationship, as examples of pure invention. Shakespeare didn't care for veracity, Macbeth, Henry VIII and all the "history" plays being as far from reality as one can get. I wonder if he thought people would realise they weren't meant to be factual? I doubt it. But, as in modern Hollywood, even then they twisted facts to suite their agenda!
A genius.
A pity so many people think his work history.
But we persevere!
Paul


On 13 Dec 2012, at 15:24, justcarol67 wrote:

> Judy Thomson <wrote:
>>
>> I'm reminded of The Duchess of Malfi. By the end, the stage is littered with dead bodies :-)
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> I blame Seneca. He converted drama from the high tragedy of the Greeks to melodrama, blood, and moralizing, and his influence on the Elizabethans was immense.
>
> http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/senecadrama.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Like Morton who became Chancellor of England, Archbishop of Canterbury and a Cardinal, and died, one of the richest men in the land, in his bed. Well paid for betraying Richard.
Like Rich and More.
Paul

On 13 Dec 2012, at 19:09, mairemulholland wrote:

> As I read through all the books on Richard, I keep coming to the same conclusion: it was Edward who was really bloodthirsty - or just pragmatic to the point of having very little conscience. And yet his little brother gets to suffer the slings and arrows while the big guy dies in bed. Maire.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>>
>> If you think about it E4 was the one who was steeped in blood from 16. Yet, none of the anti R historians point that out...... He was the one who killed Clarence, dragged people out of sanctuary and beheaded them, killed Earl of Desmond and his infant sons, had poor Henry4 killed. And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair!
>>
>> --- On Thu, 12/13/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>> To:
>> Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:19 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ishita wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
>>
>>>> Any thoughts, people?
>>
>>>
>>
>> Katy responded:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carol adds:
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Carol

I have had a quick scan through Collins book but I can't find any reference to the wagon loads of weapons. He does mention Rivers writing to his agent Andrew Dymmock on 8 March 1483 for copies of the letters patent granting him governorship of the Prince and the right to raise troops. Apparently he had been in London only a week before and could have requested them then. Collins thinks that it is odd that he should seek to consolidate his position in these two vital areas with such impeccable timing.

Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Mary wrote:
> > In his book on "The Death of Edward IV" Richard Collins says that other than sending a letter in Edward's name to Thomas Thoresby, the Mayor of Lynn, Rivers does nothing. He stays on in Ludlow until 24 August to celebrate St George's day. Apparently Rivers was created a Knight of the Garter by Edward IV and took the chivalric aspect of the order very seriously. Collins says Rivers was quite correct to observe the feast because St George was the patron saint of the Order. Then he says "but it is surely strange that even so important a rite could take precedence over the funeral of the head of the Order, who was also River's liege lord and brother in law to boot. When we add that the funeral was to take place in the Chapel of St George at Windsor, the very heart of the Order - it begins to pass all understanding! Rivers' procrastination is a flagrant and transparent excuse to do nothing. But Why do nothing?"
> >
> > At the end of the next chapter he goes on to explain that Richard was a dangerous rival to the Woodvilles especially as he had been appointed as Lord Protector of the Realm. This appointment would come to an end once Edward was crowned so it was necessary to set the date of the Coronation for as soon as possible "In the meantime, the new King must be kept away from Richard, the Council and preferably anyone else until the last moment to prevent tampering with the plan. That is why Rivers stayed in Ludlow".
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much. It also, of course, explains why Anthony Woodville sent Edward on to Stony Stratford (and all the other things we both mentioned earlier). Does Collins say anything else of interest, for example, about the wagonloads of arms?
>
> Carol
>

<And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair! >



Absolutely. And it happens to the best! Just watched "Nero - Retter Rom´s" (Rome´s saviour). I guess people who attract envy in others are bound to leave a bad image in literature.

Concerning Nero (still a "fresh villain"): It was an analysis of the architecture he advised, innovations to prevent future fires. Also that he started a campign to feed the poor and shelter the victims...and I´m sure you´re all glad to hear that they came to the conclusion that he wasn´t the anti-christ. *sorry couldn´t resist.*

Other examples: Ludovico Sforza alias Il Moro, the tyrannt, Duke of Milan (who was said to have killed his nepehew also), Lugrezia Borgia (who wasn´t as startling as some classics make believe, see Victor Hugo), Gilles de Rais (who eventually has not dozens and hundreds of children and women murdered, see "Blaubart"). I could go on for a while.

I´m sure Oscar Wilde would offer a fitting quote for that.

Marion Z

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If you think about it E4 was the one who was steeped in blood from 16. Yet, none of the anti R historians point that out...... He was the one who killed Clarence, dragged people out of sanctuary and beheaded them, killed Earl of Desmond and his infant sons, had  poor Henry4 killed. And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair!
>
> --- On Thu, 12/13/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> To:
> Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:19 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ishita wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
>
> > > Any thoughts, people?
>
> >
>
> Katy responded:
>
> >
>
> > Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.
>
>
>
> Carol adds:
>
>
>
> Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are so right, Marion.


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 15, 2012, at 6:26 PM, "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:

> <And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair! >
>
> Absolutely. And it happens to the best! Just watched "Nero - Retter Rom´s" (Rome´s saviour). I guess people who attract envy in others are bound to leave a bad image in literature.
>
> Concerning Nero (still a "fresh villain"): It was an analysis of the architecture he advised, innovations to prevent future fires. Also that he started a campign to feed the poor and shelter the victims...and I´m sure you´re all glad to hear that they came to the conclusion that he wasn´t the anti-christ. *sorry couldn´t resist.*
>
> Other examples: Ludovico Sforza alias Il Moro, the tyrannt, Duke of Milan (who was said to have killed his nepehew also), Lugrezia Borgia (who wasn´t as startling as some classics make believe, see Victor Hugo), Gilles de Rais (who eventually has not dozens and hundreds of children and women murdered, see "Blaubart"). I could go on for a while.
>
> I´m sure Oscar Wilde would offer a fitting quote for that.
>
> Marion Z
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you think about it E4 was the one who was steeped in blood from 16. Yet, none of the anti R historians point that out...... He was the one who killed Clarence, dragged people out of sanctuary and beheaded them, killed Earl of Desmond and his infant sons, had poor Henry4 killed. And R, who tried to do the best in the mess E4 created, not only lost his life tragically but his reputation! So unfair!
> >
> > --- On Thu, 12/13/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> > To:
> > Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:19 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ishita wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I don't know why Shakespeare takes it into his head to blame Gloucester for Clarence's death is beyond me!
> >
> > > > Any thoughts, people?
> >
> > >
> >
> > Katy responded:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Makes for better drama. Shakespeare was creating a Greek tragedy of sin come home to roost, so the more sins he could pile onto his R III, the better for his story.
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol adds:
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, of course, George was ahead of Richard in the succession (directly behind Edward's sons, the daughters being irrelevant), so if Richard was clearing his path to the throne by butchering those ahead of him, George was high on the list. From Shakespeare's perspective, it would only make sense to include George in the murders. Besides, murdering his own brother makes it more likely that Richard would feel no compunction about murdering his nephews. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of Richard's "crimes" were attributed to him for that very reason--steeped in blood from the age of eighteen. No wonder so many people who know him only from Shakespeare resist the idea that he was actually a well-intentioned man who tried to be a good king.
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Karen,
1)I was not so much addressing you as I was addressing anybody who might have made an assumption of Clarence's probable sexual purity on the back of your words, which I quote again, that "he may have been the brother who was > faithful to his wife". I acknowledge that you said "may", but it did indeed spark a couple of posts in that vein, and you didn't criticise those.
2) Half a dozen noblemen is not a lot. Could yu name those you can think of, and we can examine how we know about their bastards to see whether theor cases are analagous with Clarence & Gloucester.
2) I didn't say wills were the only source of knowledge of nobles' bastards - I mentioned wills as one common source!
3) Hicks writes in his biography of Clarence: "The study of his estates s hampered by the absnece of accounts for the period of his tenure." Hicks therefore relied largely on the accounts presented to the crown after Clarence's death. He also refers to a household ordinance of 1468, when Clarence was only 18, which sheds light on the size and make-up of his establishment then. But the sort of records that would contain maintenance payments to bastards and their mothers - I am not aware of any. I have also read that even in the case of Edward IV we lack data on his bastards probably because they would have been paid for out of the Privy Purse, for which we don't have the records.
4) I can't really see what point you're trying to make.



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> No, you didn't use those words. What you did say was; "It would be very
> uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children" when there was no
> assumption on my part, just the words 'Clarence had no known illegitimate
> children". It's the word 'known' in my sentence that makes it not an
> assumption.
>
> There are half a dozen noblemen of the time I could name off the top of my
> head who had illegitimate children they acknowledged. Many of these we know
> about from other sources than wills. That we don't know of any illegitimate
> children of Clarence doesn't rule them out (as I said). By the same token,
> we can't assume there were any.
>
> You said:
> "and no household records of [Clarence's] are extant,"
>
> Now you've got me scratching my head. I've come across something to do with
> Clarence's household. I'm pretty sure it was on google books along with
> similar texts to do with Edward IV and others. Not that I think this is
> going to help with the question of Clarence's possible offspring, but it's
> bugging me now! I'm looking through my links and will turn to my hardcopies
> if I don't have any luck.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:36:19 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > My words were "Clarence had no known illegitimate children" not "Clarence
> > had no illegitimate children". I wasn't ruling it out.
>
> Marie replies:
> I didn't say "Karen says he had no illegitimate children." I was merely
> responding to your suggestion that "he may have been the brother who was
> faithful to his wife" by pointing out that we have nothing at all to go on.
> When I say we only know about Richard's children because he became king I
> mean that we have no references to them from the years when he was merely
> Duke of Gloucester; the sort of records that survive for kings do not exist
> for many private individuals from this period, no matter how exalted. Had
> Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of Gloucester and
> left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would have been
> mentioned there. We might even have a surviving enfeoffment of lands to the
> use of Katherine and whoever she would have married in that altrernative
> reality, but the survival of such things is very hit and miss. In actuality,
> of course, had Richard not taken the throne in 1483 his fate would probably
> have been more like Clarence's than the above.
> We don't know about the bastards of very many noblemen of this period, and
> where we do the children tend to surface as adults, via their marriages (if
> female) or involvement in family feuds (if male). Clarence died very young
> without being able to leave a will, and no household records of his are
> extant, so if he had any bastards where would their existence be recorded?
>
> I'm not sure I follow
> > your 'we wouldn't have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. We
> > know of other noblemen's illegitimate children. Her marriage (by itself)
> > isn't enough to establish (roughly) Katherine's age, but the settlement of
> > property probably is; the same process has been used to establish (roughly)
> > Margaret Nevill's likely birth year. I'm not sure what the issue would be if
> > she were younger, though, or if John were born after Richard's marriage. If
> > Richard was entirely faithful to Anne, then that's what he was, and good on
> > him. If he wasn't, that shouldn't alter anyone's view of him, surely.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:24:29 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > > can't be entirely ruled out.
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
> > because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
> > illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> > Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
> > after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484,
> > with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon
> > for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie

1) I was responding to a misreading of my words. My intention was to
clarify what I said. I didn't 'criticise' you at all. There were others who
joined this discussion and some of them made their opinions of Clarence
known. I don't share these opinions and find it pointless to get into any
kind of back and forth over it.

2) My point here was that your statement was quite categorical: 'we wouldn't
have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. I was simply pointing
out that there were illegitimate children we do know about whose fathers
weren't kings. The Bastard of Exeter; the Bastard of Fauconberg; William of
Suffolk's daughter; Margaret Nevill Huddlestone; the Bastard of Burgundy;
John Egremont. All of them known to us from sources other than their
fathers' will. (I haven't included Hall's Bastard of Salisbury who, useful
character that he may be to a writer, probably didn't exist.)

2) "Had Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of
Gloucester and left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would
have been mentioned there."
That's a fairly clear implication that, had he not been king, the only way
we'd know about his illegitimate children is through his will. It seemed
that an explanation was being put forward for the silence about Clarence
other than 'he didn't have any illegitimate children that we know of, and
maybe he didn't have any at all'.

3) I have no problem with this.

4) I wasn't trying to make any point at all. I was reminded of something I'd
seen that probably had no bearing on anything. Your point 3) identifies it.
"He also refers to a household ordinance of 1468, when Clarence was only 18,
which sheds light on the size and make-up of his establishment then". That's
what I remembered seeing and couldn't recall. I put it in my hardcopy files
some time ago and haven't given it much thought since, as I'm nowhere near
'Clarence' yet.

Marie, you are one of the people in this forum I most enjoy talking to. It
worries me greatly when our discussions fall apart, especially when I have
no idea why they do.

Karen


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:26:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children







Karen,
1)I was not so much addressing you as I was addressing anybody who might
have made an assumption of Clarence's probable sexual purity on the back of
your words, which I quote again, that "he may have been the brother who was
> faithful to his wife". I acknowledge that you said "may", but it did
indeed spark a couple of posts in that vein, and you didn't criticise those.
2) Half a dozen noblemen is not a lot. Could yu name those you can think of,
and we can examine how we know about their bastards to see whether theor
cases are analagous with Clarence & Gloucester.
2) I didn't say wills were the only source of knowledge of nobles' bastards
- I mentioned wills as one common source!
3) Hicks writes in his biography of Clarence: "The study of his estates s
hampered by the absnece of accounts for the period of his tenure." Hicks
therefore relied largely on the accounts presented to the crown after
Clarence's death. He also refers to a household ordinance of 1468, when
Clarence was only 18, which sheds light on the size and make-up of his
establishment then. But the sort of records that would contain maintenance
payments to bastards and their mothers - I am not aware of any. I have also
read that even in the case of Edward IV we lack data on his bastards
probably because they would have been paid for out of the Privy Purse, for
which we don't have the records.
4) I can't really see what point you're trying to make.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> No, you didn't use those words. What you did say was; "It would be very
> uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children" when there was no
> assumption on my part, just the words 'Clarence had no known illegitimate
> children". It's the word 'known' in my sentence that makes it not an
> assumption.
>
> There are half a dozen noblemen of the time I could name off the top of my
> head who had illegitimate children they acknowledged. Many of these we know
> about from other sources than wills. That we don't know of any illegitimate
> children of Clarence doesn't rule them out (as I said). By the same token,
> we can't assume there were any.
>
> You said:
> "and no household records of [Clarence's] are extant,"
>
> Now you've got me scratching my head. I've come across something to do with
> Clarence's household. I'm pretty sure it was on google books along with
> similar texts to do with Edward IV and others. Not that I think this is
> going to help with the question of Clarence's possible offspring, but it's
> bugging me now! I'm looking through my links and will turn to my hardcopies
> if I don't have any luck.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:36:19 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > My words were "Clarence had no known illegitimate children" not "Clarence
> > had no illegitimate children". I wasn't ruling it out.
>
> Marie replies:
> I didn't say "Karen says he had no illegitimate children." I was merely
> responding to your suggestion that "he may have been the brother who was
> faithful to his wife" by pointing out that we have nothing at all to go on.
> When I say we only know about Richard's children because he became king I
> mean that we have no references to them from the years when he was merely
> Duke of Gloucester; the sort of records that survive for kings do not exist
> for many private individuals from this period, no matter how exalted. Had
> Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of Gloucester and
> left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would have been
> mentioned there. We might even have a surviving enfeoffment of lands to the
> use of Katherine and whoever she would have married in that altrernative
> reality, but the survival of such things is very hit and miss. In actuality,
> of course, had Richard not taken the throne in 1483 his fate would probably
> have been more like Clarence's than the above.
> We don't know about the bastards of very many noblemen of this period, and
> where we do the children tend to surface as adults, via their marriages (if
> female) or involvement in family feuds (if male). Clarence died very young
> without being able to leave a will, and no household records of his are
> extant, so if he had any bastards where would their existence be recorded?
>
> I'm not sure I follow
> > your 'we wouldn't have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. We
> > know of other noblemen's illegitimate children. Her marriage (by itself)
> > isn't enough to establish (roughly) Katherine's age, but the settlement of
> > property probably is; the same process has been used to establish (roughly)
> > Margaret Nevill's likely birth year. I'm not sure what the issue would be if
> > she were younger, though, or if John were born after Richard's marriage. If
> > Richard was entirely faithful to Anne, then that's what he was, and good on
> > him. If he wasn't, that shouldn't alter anyone's view of him, surely.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:24:29 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Clarence had no known illegitimate children. He may have been the one
> > > brother who was faithful to his wife. As we don't have firm birthdates for
> > > Richard's illegitimate children, their conception after Richard's marriage
> > > can't be entirely ruled out.
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > It would be very uswise to assume Clarence had no illegitimate children
> > because we don't know about them. We wouldn't have known about Richard's
> > illegitimate children if he hadn't become king.
> > Also, I think we can fairly safely rule out Katherine having been conceived
> > after Richard's marriage as she became the Countess of Huntingdon in 1484,
> > with property settled on her and her husband, and it was extremely uncommon
> > for English girls to consummate their marriages below the age of fourteen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> 1) I was responding to a misreading of my words. My intention was to
> clarify what I said. I didn't 'criticise' you at all.

Marie:
I didn't mean to say you criticised me personally, but you criticised my post in which I pointed out that we don't have any of the sort of documentation for Clarence that could have the potential to answer the question as to whether he fathered bastards.

There were others who
> joined this discussion and some of them made their opinions of Clarence
> known. I don't share these opinions and find it pointless to get into any
> kind of back and forth over it.

Marie replies:
But

>
> 2) My point here was that your statement was quite categorical: 'we wouldn't
> have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. I was simply pointing
> out that there were illegitimate children we do know about whose fathers
> weren't kings. The Bastard of Exeter; the Bastard of Fauconberg; William of
> Suffolk's daughter; Margaret Nevill Huddlestone; the Bastard of Burgundy;
> John Egremont. All of them known to us from sources other than their
> fathers' will. (I haven't included Hall's Bastard of Salisbury who, useful
> character that he may be to a writer, probably didn't exist.)

Marie replies:
Karen, how many times are you going to quote me out of context to try to produce the idea that I said wills are the only source for knowing about bastards? I didn't say that at all, and in fact stated clearly that the usual reason we know about noble bastards is: for girls through their marriages once they are grown women, and for boys once they too have grown up, through their involvement in the family's armed activities. The examples you cite here actually serve to prove my point, as I suspected they would. The Bastard of Burgundy is a bad choice as he was the son of a foreign ruler, so can't be regarded as evidence of how likely we are to know about the bastards of English noblemen.
There were two bastards of Exeter, of course, so you could replace the Bastard of Burgundy with the other one of those. (One is said to have beheaded Salisbury, but both aided their brother the Duke of Exeter in his rebellion against York's first protectorate.)
The list does, however, back up my contention that we don't tend to have evidence of bastard offspring until they grow up. Which is why we wouldn't have evidence of Clarence's. Probably I could have phrased my statement about Richard better but my view as you know is that he would not have survived long had he not taken the throne, and none of the extant records from his time as Duke of Gloucester contain any mention of John or Katherine and these are probably all we would have had.
>
> 2) "Had Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of
> Gloucester and left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would
> have been mentioned there."
> That's a fairly clear implication that, had he not been king, the only way
> we'd know about his illegitimate children is through his will.

Marie replies:
Karen, as you quote my post you must know perfectly well that I also suggested a settlement of property on Katherine and her husband on their marriage as another type of documentary evidence of her existence that could have survived. That and the will were examples - please don't make out it was anything more than that.

>
> Marie, you are one of the people in this forum I most enjoy talking to. It
> worries me greatly when our discussions fall apart, especially when I have
> no idea why they do.

Marie replies:
Really? From this end it doesn't feel like that at all.

" ........... the usual reason we know about noble bastards is: for girls through their marriages once they are grown women .........." - which confirms what I am researching at present;)

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's illegitimate children





--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> 1) I was responding to a misreading of my words. My intention was to
> clarify what I said. I didn't 'criticise' you at all.

Marie:
I didn't mean to say you criticised me personally, but you criticised my post in which I pointed out that we don't have any of the sort of documentation for Clarence that could have the potential to answer the question as to whether he fathered bastards.

There were others who
> joined this discussion and some of them made their opinions of Clarence
> known. I don't share these opinions and find it pointless to get into any
> kind of back and forth over it.

Marie replies:
But

>
> 2) My point here was that your statement was quite categorical: 'we wouldn't
> have known about Richard's?if he hadn't become king'. I was simply pointing
> out that there were illegitimate children we do know about whose fathers
> weren't kings. The Bastard of Exeter; the Bastard of Fauconberg; William of
> Suffolk's daughter; Margaret Nevill Huddlestone; the Bastard of Burgundy;
> John Egremont. All of them known to us from sources other than their
> fathers' will. (I haven't included Hall's Bastard of Salisbury who, useful
> character that he may be to a writer, probably didn't exist.)

Marie replies:
Karen, how many times are you going to quote me out of context to try to produce the idea that I said wills are the only source for knowing about bastards? I didn't say that at all, and in fact stated clearly that the usual reason we know about noble bastards is: for girls through their marriages once they are grown women, and for boys once they too have grown up, through their involvement in the family's armed activities. The examples you cite here actually serve to prove my point, as I suspected they would. The Bastard of Burgundy is a bad choice as he was the son of a foreign ruler, so can't be regarded as evidence of how likely we are to know about the bastards of English noblemen.
There were two bastards of Exeter, of course, so you could replace the Bastard of Burgundy with the other one of those. (One is said to have beheaded Salisbury, but both aided their brother the Duke of Exeter in his rebellion against York's first protectorate.)
The list does, however, back up my contention that we don't tend to have evidence of bastard offspring until they grow up. Which is why we wouldn't have evidence of Clarence's. Probably I could have phrased my statement about Richard better but my view as you know is that he would not have survived long had he not taken the throne, and none of the extant records from his time as Duke of Gloucester contain any mention of John or Katherine and these are probably all we would have had.
>
> 2) "Had Richard died in his bed as a middle-aged or elderly Duke of
> Gloucester and left us a will, it is of course fairly likely that they would
> have been mentioned there."
> That's a fairly clear implication that, had he not been king, the only way
> we'd know about his illegitimate children is through his will.

Marie replies:
Karen, as you quote my post you must know perfectly well that I also suggested a settlement of property on Katherine and her husband on their marriage as another type of documentary evidence of her existence that could have survived. That and the will were examples - please don't make out it was anything more than that.

>
> Marie, you are one of the people in this forum I most enjoy talking to. It
> worries me greatly when our discussions fall apart, especially when I have
> no idea why they do.

Marie replies:
Really? From this end it doesn't feel like that at all.

--- In , "ricard1an" wrote:

Hi Carol

I have had a quick scan through Collins book but I can't find any reference to the wagon loads of weapons. He does mention Rivers writing to his agent Andrew Dymmock on 8 March 1483 for copies of the letters patent granting him governorship of the Prince and the right to raise troops. Apparently he had been in London only a week before and could have requested them then. Collins thinks that it is odd that he should seek to consolidate his position in these two vital areas with such impeccable timing.

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. If you find anything in Collins on the wagonloads of armor and weapons, let me know. Richard must have had a good reason for arresting Anthony Woodville et al., and too many historians have dismissed the wagons as meaningless. Also, of course, Anthony is the one unselfish Woodville in most historian's eyes. It's possible to be both scholarly and ambitious or even ruthless, as John Tiptoft illustrates. (Not that I'm comparing Anthony Woodville to Tiptoft; I just think that Woodville was up to his nose in the plot to prevent Richard's protectorship and control the young king even if that meant civil war).

Carol