Introduction

Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?

I have also come across an interesting paper:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Volume 8, February 1994
A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
"Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"

Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.

Thank you for any information.

merriann

There's enough literature on the subject to sink the Bismark. Again. So asking people here sounds a bit like asking William Hill who's gonna win the St. Leger.

Good luck.

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
>
> I have also come across an interesting paper:
>
> Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> Volume 8, February 1994
> A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
>
> Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> merriann
>

Welcome. I think it looks more likely that nobody killed the ex-Princes.

----- Original Message -----
From: merriannmclain
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:29 PM
Subject: Introduction



Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?

I have also come across an interesting paper:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Volume 8, February 1994
A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
"Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"

Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.

Thank you for any information.

merriann

Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.

Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
>
> I have also come across an interesting paper:
>
> Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> Volume 8, February 1994
> A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
>
> Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> merriann
>

Welcome Meriann.

I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!

Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
What do you guys think?
Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!

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

On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
>
> Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> >
> > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> >
> > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > Volume 8, February 1994
> > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> >
> > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> >
> > Thank you for any information.
> >
> > merriann
> >
>
>

Urgh, please ignore my iPhone and iPad's habit of autocorrection!

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

On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
>
> Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> >
> > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> >
> > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > Volume 8, February 1994
> > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> >
> > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> >
> > Thank you for any information.
> >
> > merriann
> >
>
>

Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
>
> Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> >
> > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> >
> > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > Volume 8, February 1994
> > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> >
> > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> >
> > Thank you for any information.
> >
> > merriann
> >
>

Read "Under the Hog" which portrays Edward V as a drunken little monster. After reading it, I proclaimed justifiable homocide.

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome Meriann.
>
> I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!
>
> Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
> What do you guys think?
> Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
> I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> >
> > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > >
> > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > >
> > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > >
> > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > >
> > > Thank you for any information.
> > >
> > > merriann
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Lolol!!!
But it is fiction.......

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

On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:40 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Read "Under the Hog" which portrays Edward V as a drunken little monster. After reading it, I proclaimed justifiable homocide.
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome Meriann.
> >
> > I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!
> >
> > Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
> > What do you guys think?
> > Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
> > I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > >
> > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > >
> > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > >
> > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > >
> > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > >
> > > > merriann
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted here in summer (July?) with a link.

Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily have meant a different one - especially under torture.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Yahoo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction



Welcome Meriann.

I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!

Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
What do you guys think?
Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!

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

On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
>
> Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> >
> > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> >
> > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > Volume 8, February 1994
> > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> >
> > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> >
> > Thank you for any information.
> >
> > merriann
> >
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted here in summer (July?) with a link.
>
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily have meant a different one - especially under torture.



Katy says:

And, Warbeck could have been protecting someone who had helped him or spared him, by pinning the death of his brother on someone safely dead.

Katy

I guess sometimes fiction is stranger than truth!

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Lolol!!!
> But it is fiction.......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:40 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> > Read "Under the Hog" which portrays Edward V as a drunken little monster. After reading it, I proclaimed justifiable homocide.
> >
> > --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome Meriann.
> > >
> > > I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!
> > >
> > > Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
> > > What do you guys think?
> > > Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
> > > I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > >
> > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > >
> > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > >
> > > > > merriann
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:

> Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> >
> > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > >
> > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > >
> > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > >
> > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > >
> > > Thank you for any information.
> > >
> > > merriann
> > >
> >
>
>

Hi Merriann..Welcome....now here is the thing...More never said that young Edward was suffering from an illness of the jaw...What Dr Argentine actually said was that Edward was suffering from depression and fearful. No mention of a painful jaw. Some, including Paul Murrey Kendall, have sumised that Edward suffered from a diseased jaw because one of the jaws in the urn in the Abbey is diseased and would have caused the person great pain.....

This is one of the little asides to history that not enough is made of but is actually very important...

Eileen




>
>
>
> Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> merriann
>
>

No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol

PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!

--- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
>
> > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > >
> > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > >
> > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > >
> > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > >
> > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > >
> > > > merriann
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
>
> PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
>
> --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> >
> > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > >
> > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > >
> > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > >
> > > > > merriann
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I love this that bit.....You just wonder...could it have happened like that? It must have been quite difficult for both Richard and Edward.....poor little blighter....Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Read "Under the Hog" which portrays Edward V as a drunken little monster. After reading it, I proclaimed justifiable homocide.
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome Meriann.
> >
> > I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!
> >
> > Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
> > What do you guys think?
> > Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
> > I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > >
> > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > >
> > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > >
> > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > >
> > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > >
> > > > merriann
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

It's always interesting to read the various fictional accounts of the meeting of Richard and Edward. And then to look at a photo of the three autographs and ponder what really happened that day.

That's the fascination and lure of history! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I love this that bit.....You just wonder...could it have happened like that? It must have been quite difficult for both Richard and Edward.....poor little blighter....Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Read "Under the Hog" which portrays Edward V as a drunken little monster. After reading it, I proclaimed justifiable homocide.
> >
> > --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome Meriann.
> > >
> > > I always have this problem about the princes: if they were not killed by R3's order, why didn't he publicly deny those charges? He did deny the rumor about Eof Y. That had to be humiliating!
> > >
> > > Secondly, if Perkin Warbeck was indeed the Duke of York, he alleges that they were ordered to be killed by their Uncle. How do we reconcile PW's being alive and his accusing R for the assassination order. If R had them whisked away to safety, why would RW say that? Unless he is an imposter, of course. I can't seem to reconcile these two things....
> > > What do you guys think?
> > > Also, even if we DO want Hvii to be culpable, how could he have done the deed? We can accuse MB of only so much......
> > > I get so confused sometime. You know , my love for the man struggling with this nagging suspicion. Please put me out of my misery!
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:55 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > >
> > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > >
> > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > >
> > > > > merriann
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> >
> > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > merriann
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Attachments are not possible here but you can add a file.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Introduction



No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol

PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!

--- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
>
> > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > >
> > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > >
> > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > >
> > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > >
> > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > >
> > > > merriann
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Good one, cheers. Just done that. Tragically, I MIGHT have forgot to tick the 'send email alert' box though. D'Oh!
So no-one will know the s*dding thing's there LOL

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Attachments are not possible here but you can add a file.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
> No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
>
> PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
>
> --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> >
> > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > >
> > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > >
> > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > >
> > > > > merriann
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Blanc: thank you so much for the article. I just finished reading it. Fascinating and now I have a new disease to add to my hypochondria! Whoever the child was, I feel so sorry for him. Maire.
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> Good one, cheers. Just done that. Tragically, I MIGHT have forgot to tick the 'send email alert' box though. D'Oh!
> So no-one will know the s*dding thing's there LOL
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Attachments are not possible here but you can add a file.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> >
> > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > merriann
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi blanc would you mind sending me the email. Many thanks and regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:29:43
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Blanc: thank you so much for the article. I just finished reading it. Fascinating and now I have a new disease to add to my hypochondria! Whoever the child was, I feel so sorry for him. Maire.
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> Good one, cheers. Just done that. Tragically, I MIGHT have forgot to tick the 'send email alert' box though. D'Oh!
> So no-one will know the s*dding thing's there LOL
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Attachments are not possible here but you can add a file.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> >
> > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > merriann
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files/Edward%20V%20%26%20Histiocytosis/

Can't seem to see anyone's emails I'm afraid but uploaded it to the files, so should be able to d'load it? if not, email me direct. And no problems. Cheers!
Ed

--- In , c.nelson1@... wrote:
>
> Hi blanc would you mind sending me the email. Many thanks and regards. Coral
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...>
> Sender:
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:29:43
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
> Blanc: thank you so much for the article. I just finished reading it. Fascinating and now I have a new disease to add to my hypochondria! Whoever the child was, I feel so sorry for him. Maire.
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > Good one, cheers. Just done that. Tragically, I MIGHT have forgot to tick the 'send email alert' box though. D'Oh!
> > So no-one will know the s*dding thing's there LOL
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attachments are not possible here but you can add a file.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: blancsanglier1452
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > >
> > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > >
> > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:50:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction






Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
here in summer (July?) with a link.

Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
have meant a different one - especially under torture.

> I have also come across an interesting paper:
>
> Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> Volume 8, February 1994
> A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
>
> Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> merriann
>

Marie replies:
Welcome Merriann.
Actually nobody at all had said that Edward was suffering from a disease of the jaw before those bones were examined in the 1930s. What happened is that Tanner and Wright identified an area of degradation in the jaw of the elder of the children and decided it was due to disease, osteomyelitis perhaps. Ever since then there have been writers who have stated that Edward V had a disease of the jaw, but it is all based on the assumption that the bones in the urn belong to Edward V and his brother.
The royal jaw-ache is an idea that has taken on such a life of its own that there are even Ricardian novelists who have given Edward V a jaw disease and then had him spirited away from the Tower to safety in Burgundy.....
Personally I would be very surprised if those bones belonged to the Princes because the burial was very deep and discovered whilst removing structures that were already present in Richard's day.

Stephen posted:
Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
here in summer (July?) with a link.
Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
have meant a different one - especially under torture.

Terry responded:
I'm guessing Stephen in his enigmatic way is referring to the Princes'
uncle, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham! He was md. to Eliz
Woodville's sister Catherine, thus an uncle to the Princes. If I'm right SL
do I get a prize! It's certainly a possibility, given the little we know.

T

Karen Clark wrote:

"Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella."

Karen, do you know/remember if any name was given to that "uncle" or is it a
supposition by some historians that he was referring to Richard?
Thanks,
Doug

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

> Marie said:

> Actually nobody at all had said that Edward was suffering from a disease of the jaw before those bones were examined in the 1930s. What happened is that Tanner and Wright identified an area of degradation in the jaw of the elder of the children and decided it was due to disease, osteomyelitis perhaps. Ever since then there have been writers who have stated that Edward V had a disease of the jaw, but it is all based on the assumption that the bones in the urn belong to Edward V and his brother.

Katy:

This is a case of discovering something (a diseased jaw in the skull among the collection of bones now ensconced in the urn at Westminster) and working backward to find a theory to fit. "The bones must be those of the 'princes in the Tower' and one skull shows bone disease therefore one of the boys had a diseased jaw." It isn't the only such example, by any means, that you'll find in print in regards to Richard III and his times.

Welcome to the group, Merriann. What a pretty name.

Katy

A salutory lesson Katy and one my professors keep attempting to pound into me:  double check the facts and the sources!



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Introduction

 


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

> Marie said:

> Actually nobody at all had said that Edward was suffering from a disease of the jaw before those bones were examined in the 1930s. What happened is that Tanner and Wright identified an area of degradation in the jaw of the elder of the children and decided it was due to disease, osteomyelitis perhaps. Ever since then there have been writers who have stated that Edward V had a disease of the jaw, but it is all based on the assumption that the bones in the urn belong to Edward V and his brother.

Katy:

This is a case of discovering something (a diseased jaw in the skull among the collection of bones now ensconced in the urn at Westminster) and working backward to find a theory to fit. "The bones must be those of the 'princes in the Tower' and one skull shows bone disease therefore one of the boys had a diseased jaw." It isn't the only such example, by any means, that you'll find in print in regards to Richard III and his times.

Welcome to the group, Merriann. What a pretty name.

Katy

--- In , Merri Ann Mc Lain <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> A salutory lesson Katy and one my professors keep attempting to pound into me:  double check the facts and the sources!

Katy:

I wish all professional historians would check facts and sources. Instead, they often copy one another, and pretty soon something bogus or misunderstood becomes accepted fact -- it must be true, since you read the same thing in multiple places, right?

The late Stephen Jay Gould did a column on the tendency of science writers, not just historians, to crib from each other instead of doing original research, or even original thinking. He called it fox terriering, because he kept finding the little proto-horse eohippus described as being the size of a fox terrier. Always a fox terrier. He followed that comparison back through the literature to the writing of one paleontologist in the mid 19th century...other writers seem to have slavishly followed that description.

So there are non-facts floating around in the Richard III study world that are accepted as gospel because you see them so often. That Anne Neville was sickly, for instance. No contemporary source ever said so, as far as I know. She produced only one child that we know of, and she died young, and from those facts a whole scenario of her being sickly has devolved. Some writers have even decided that she had tuberculosis, all from the statement by, I believe, the Croyland Chronicler, that Richard's doctors had advised him to shun her bed.

And so on. It's a good idea to try to research almost everything you read, if possible, or at least to entertain alternate possibilities.

Katy

If Perkin was an impostor (which I think more likely than not) it doesn't
much matter what explanation he gave for his escape. Given that enough
people in England (whether through stories promulgated via Henry VII or
earlier rumours) that the princes had been murdered, and probably by
Richard, it's an explanation that would have seemed plausible. (Whether true
or not.) And to Perkin's backers, with Richard dead, it would hardly have
mattered. When it came to the possibility of toppling Henry and restoring
some kind of Yorkist monarchy, the ends may well have justified the means.
It's only when one is convinced that Perkin was the young duke of York that
the 'my uncle killed my brother' story has to be dealt with, either by
taking it at face value or trying to find a way to discredit it or shift the
focus from Richard. IF Perkin was the young duke, then that story has to be
considered on its merits. It wasn't part of his confessions or extracted
under torture. It was written much earlier than this, in a letter to Queen
Isabella. I also believe (I'd have to check) that there was mention of it in
correspondence connected with James IV.

Karen

From: Terry Buckaloo <tandjules@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:38:34 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Introduction






Stephen posted:
Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
here in summer (July?) with a link.
Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
have meant a different one - especially under torture.

Terry responded:
I'm guessing Stephen in his enigmatic way is referring to the Princes'
uncle, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham! He was md. to Eliz
Woodville's sister Catherine, thus an uncle to the Princes. If I'm right SL
do I get a prize! It's certainly a possibility, given the little we know.

T

Doug,

He wasn't named at all. The inference (given the rumours and stories at the
time) would seem to be Richard, however. That would almost certainly be the
connection made In, say, Queen Isabella's mind. I doubt she'd have leapt to
Buckingham, for instance.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:04:36 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Karen Clark wrote:

"Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella."

Karen, do you know/remember if any name was given to that "uncle" or is it a
supposition by some historians that he was referring to Richard?
Thanks,
Doug

Hello Merriann and welcome.
I'm a member of The Richard 111 Society and the Yorkshire branch.
 One book which is very good and easy to read is Annette Carson's Richard111 The Maligned King, also any of John Ashdown Hill's books.
There are many more of course.
The Society website is full of information on Richard though take what Hick's writes with a pinch of salt.
The society web site can give you all the books there are on Richard and his times also lots of articles on the site.
You do not have to be a member of the Society to read the info.
I for one do not hold Richard responsible for the deaths of the sons of Edward iv or for the others he is supposed to have done away with.
All the Best
Chris
Loyaulte me Lie
 
 


________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2012, 14:29
Subject: Introduction


 

Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?

I have also come across an interesting paper:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Volume 8, February 1994
A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
"Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"

Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.

Thank you for any information.

merriann

If there had been murders, the ex-Princes had a few uncles: Richard was their father's surviving brother but their mother's sisters' husbands included Buckingham, their father's sisters still had one live husband in 1483 and there were others that might fit the description. Who knows what "Perkin" might claim at various stages?

You can search for Ed's post, including a link to the original.

----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Buckaloo
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction



Stephen posted:
Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
here in summer (July?) with a link.
Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
have meant a different one - especially under torture.

Terry responded:
I'm guessing Stephen in his enigmatic way is referring to the Princes'
uncle, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham! He was md. to Eliz
Woodville's sister Catherine, thus an uncle to the Princes. If I'm right SL
do I get a prize! It's certainly a possibility, given the little we know.

T

I found Ed's post yesterday. Unfortunately, no matter how much I enlarged the page of Holingshed, I could not read what it said. Can someone just clarify what Richard said? Thanks. Maire.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> If there had been murders, the ex-Princes had a few uncles: Richard was their father's surviving brother but their mother's sisters' husbands included Buckingham, their father's sisters still had one live husband in 1483 and there were others that might fit the description. Who knows what "Perkin" might claim at various stages?
>
> You can search for Ed's post, including a link to the original.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terry Buckaloo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
> Stephen posted:
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
> here in summer (July?) with a link.
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
> have meant a different one - especially under torture.
>
> Terry responded:
> I'm guessing Stephen in his enigmatic way is referring to the Princes'
> uncle, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham! He was md. to Eliz
> Woodville's sister Catherine, thus an uncle to the Princes. If I'm right SL
> do I get a prize! It's certainly a possibility, given the little we know.
>
> T
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Chris...I have looked through the Society's website but the list of material is daunting!



________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction

 
Hello Merriann and welcome.
I'm a member of The Richard 111 Society and the Yorkshire branch.
 One book which is very good and easy to read is Annette Carson's Richard111 The Maligned King, also any of John Ashdown Hill's books.
There are many more of course.
The Society website is full of information on Richard though take what Hick's writes with a pinch of salt.
The society web site can give you all the books there are on Richard and his times also lots of articles on the site.
You do not have to be a member of the Society to read the info.
I for one do not hold Richard responsible for the deaths of the sons of Edward iv or for the others he is supposed to have done away with.
All the Best
Chris
Loyaulte me Lie
 
 


________________________________
From: merriannmclain <mailto:merriannmclain%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2012, 14:29
Subject: Introduction


 

Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?

I have also come across an interesting paper:

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Volume 8, February 1994
A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
"Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"

Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.

Thank you for any information.

merriann

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted here in summer (July?) with a link.
>
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily have meant a different one - especially under torture.

Carol responds:

Are you sure that Richard denied the rumor? I'd appreciate it if you can find the link. I've always thought it possible that he never heard the rumor of the so-called princes' deaths. It "was spread" (according to the Croyland Chronicle) at the time of Buckingham's rebellion (so-called) as a way of diverting the rebels to Tudor's cause. If Richard knew about it, he may have thought it beneath his dignity to respond. Alternatively, he may have wanted to keep the boys' whereabouts secret, and if people thought that they might be dead, the better for their safety--not to mention that it would be absurd to attempt to restore a "dead" king.

Also, Ishita, if he *had* ordered them killed, surely, he would have displayed the bodies (as E4 did with Henry VI and the Neville brothers and the Tudor later did with Richard himself) as proof that they were dead--of sweating sickness or the plague, of course.

As for Perkin Warbeck's comment about an uncle (assuming that the confession was valid), Buckingham was Richard of York's uncle by marriage. He was married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister, Catherine. But, of course, there are many other explanations and until the bones in the Tower are examined, we won't know which ones to credit and which to discard. I personally prefer Audrey Williamson's idea that they stayed for a while with Sir James Tyrell at Gypping and that Richard was arranging their transfer to his sister Margaret in Burgundy at the time of his death. What happened from there is anybody's guess.

Carol

--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> Good one, cheers. Just done that. Tragically, I MIGHT have forgot to tick the 'send email alert' box though. D'Oh!
> So no-one will know the s*dding thing's there LOL

Carol responds:

Just open your file, copy the link, and paste it into your next message. Or give us the name of the file and we can find it ourselves.

Carol

I have been to Gipping Chapel and we all know Tyrrell's fate many years later. The Tydder showed no signs of knowing anything about the ex-Princes in the aftermath of Bosworth but if he found them at Gipping, or evidence that they had been there en route to elsewhere he needed them to be officially dead for the sake of the Spanish marriage - this involved turning Tyrrell from a carer into a killer. His mentions in Tudor propaganda with the pillows presumably date from after this time so "Perkin", Warwick and Tyrrell are cleared out as well.
You are quite right that, had they been dead for any reason, it would have very much suited Richard to point it out because the transparently dead cannot be impersonated credibly. Transparency was also one of the points of executing people in public or with witnesses.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Introduction





"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted here in summer (July?) with a link.
>
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily have meant a different one - especially under torture.

Carol responds:

Are you sure that Richard denied the rumor? I'd appreciate it if you can find the link. I've always thought it possible that he never heard the rumor of the so-called princes' deaths. It "was spread" (according to the Croyland Chronicle) at the time of Buckingham's rebellion (so-called) as a way of diverting the rebels to Tudor's cause. If Richard knew about it, he may have thought it beneath his dignity to respond. Alternatively, he may have wanted to keep the boys' whereabouts secret, and if people thought that they might be dead, the better for their safety--not to mention that it would be absurd to attempt to restore a "dead" king.

Also, Ishita, if he *had* ordered them killed, surely, he would have displayed the bodies (as E4 did with Henry VI and the Neville brothers and the Tudor later did with Richard himself) as proof that they were dead--of sweating sickness or the plague, of course.

As for Perkin Warbeck's comment about an uncle (assuming that the confession was valid), Buckingham was Richard of York's uncle by marriage. He was married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister, Catherine. But, of course, there are many other explanations and until the bones in the Tower are examined, we won't know which ones to credit and which to discard. I personally prefer Audrey Williamson's idea that they stayed for a while with Sir James Tyrell at Gypping and that Richard was arranging their transfer to his sister Margaret in Burgundy at the time of his death. What happened from there is anybody's guess.

Carol

I sympathise, Maire.
My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
Marie


--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
> No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > >
> > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > >
> > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
> done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella.
>
> Karen


Marie replies,
Perkin named no one in that letter to Queen Isabella. Her merely said that he and his brother had been delivered to a certain lord to be killed.
The actual naming of Richard as the evil genius behind his brother's murder comes from Polydore Vergil in the text of a speech - clearly invented for dramatic purposes - supposedly made by Perkin to James IV of Scotland.
Anyhow if, for the sake of argument, Buckingham or another had decided to kill the Princes for his own purposes, he would scarcely have explained himself first and the boys would have assumed he was acting on Richard's orders.

>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:50:06 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
> here in summer (July?) with a link.
>
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
> have meant a different one - especially under torture.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:

"Doug,
He wasn't named at all. The inference (given the rumours and stories at the
time) would seem to be Richard, however. That would almost certainly be the
connection made In, say, Queen Isabella's mind. I doubt she'd have leapt to
Buckingham, for instance."

I don't suppose Latin differentiates between uncles from the mother's side
and those from the father's side? It's been a half-century since I studied
Latin, to say it's rusty is an understatement! One would think trained
historians would have caught such a thing if it exists, however...
My thought is, as Perkin/Richard was trying to build up an anti-Tudor
coalition, the less specific he was about which uncle, the better; whether
the "uncle" was Richard, Buckingham or yet another person. Personally, it
sounds to me as if that letter was composed by a bunch of Perkin/Richard's
"strategists" to accomplish just that - let everyone believe what they
wanted, so long as support was forthcoming.
Lacking more exact information however, Richard has to remain a contender as
the referenced "uncle", I'm just not ruling out others who also fit that
generic description.
Doug

The problem is not necessarilly confined to just translation of course; usage could be an issue too. 'Uncle' need not imply a blood relationship, but as much a term of familiarity etc.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
> "Doug,
> He wasn't named at all. The inference (given the rumours and stories at the
> time) would seem to be Richard, however. That would almost certainly be the
> connection made In, say, Queen Isabella's mind. I doubt she'd have leapt to
> Buckingham, for instance."
>
> I don't suppose Latin differentiates between uncles from the mother's side
> and those from the father's side? It's been a half-century since I studied
> Latin, to say it's rusty is an understatement! One would think trained
> historians would have caught such a thing if it exists, however...
> My thought is, as Perkin/Richard was trying to build up an anti-Tudor
> coalition, the less specific he was about which uncle, the better; whether
> the "uncle" was Richard, Buckingham or yet another person. Personally, it
> sounds to me as if that letter was composed by a bunch of Perkin/Richard's
> "strategists" to accomplish just that - let everyone believe what they
> wanted, so long as support was forthcoming.
> Lacking more exact information however, Richard has to remain a contender as
> the referenced "uncle", I'm just not ruling out others who also fit that
> generic description.
> Doug
>

Doug wrote:

"Personally, it sounds to me as if that letter was composed by a bunch of
Perkin/Richard's "strategists" to accomplish just that - let everyone
believe what they wanted, so long as support was forthcoming."

It sounds like that to me, as well.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:38:51 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Karen Clark wrote:

"Doug,
He wasn't named at all. The inference (given the rumours and stories at the
time) would seem to be Richard, however. That would almost certainly be the
connection made In, say, Queen Isabella's mind. I doubt she'd have leapt to
Buckingham, for instance."

I don't suppose Latin differentiates between uncles from the mother's side
and those from the father's side? It's been a half-century since I studied
Latin, to say it's rusty is an understatement! One would think trained
historians would have caught such a thing if it exists, however...
My thought is, as Perkin/Richard was trying to build up an anti-Tudor
coalition, the less specific he was about which uncle, the better; whether
the "uncle" was Richard, Buckingham or yet another person. Personally, it
sounds to me as if that letter was composed by a bunch of Perkin/Richard's
"strategists" to accomplish just that - let everyone believe what they
wanted, so long as support was forthcoming.
Lacking more exact information however, Richard has to remain a contender as
the referenced "uncle", I'm just not ruling out others who also fit that
generic description.
Doug

Interestingly, although I haven't used Latin for nearly thirty years, I recall that there were separate words for maternal and paternal uncles: avunculus (hence the adjective) and patruus. Vergil's material depends a little on whether he used this or late medieval Italian, which may not have two such words.

As blancsanglier points out, the vernacular definition includes the "social uncle". Marie has reminded us that the word's use in the context only dates from Vergil's dubious speech to James IV whereas Perkin's original refers to a "certain lord".

So, the circle of potential "exporters" is wider still.

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction




Karen Clark wrote:

"Doug,
He wasn't named at all. The inference (given the rumours and stories at the
time) would seem to be Richard, however. That would almost certainly be the
connection made In, say, Queen Isabella's mind. I doubt she'd have leapt to
Buckingham, for instance."

I don't suppose Latin differentiates between uncles from the mother's side
and those from the father's side? It's been a half-century since I studied
Latin, to say it's rusty is an understatement! One would think trained
historians would have caught such a thing if it exists, however...
My thought is, as Perkin/Richard was trying to build up an anti-Tudor
coalition, the less specific he was about which uncle, the better; whether
the "uncle" was Richard, Buckingham or yet another person. Personally, it
sounds to me as if that letter was composed by a bunch of Perkin/Richard's
"strategists" to accomplish just that - let everyone believe what they
wanted, so long as support was forthcoming.
Lacking more exact information however, Richard has to remain a contender as
the referenced "uncle", I'm just not ruling out others who also fit that
generic description.
Doug

I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!

Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I sympathise, Maire.
> My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > >
> > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > >
> > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"

<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Interestingly, although I haven't used Latin for nearly thirty years, I recall that there were separate words for maternal and paternal uncles: avunculus (hence the adjective) and patruus. Vergil's material depends a little on whether he used this or late medieval Italian, which may not have two such words.

Katy:

Another factor to consider, in checking which Latin form of "uncle" that Vergil used, is whether Warbeck wrote his letter in English, Latin, Flemish, or French. If he didn't write in Latin, then we have to consider that Vergil chose which form of "uncle" to use, and that he may have chosen the paternal uncle form because he was assuming the uncle in question was Richard, or he wanted to put that spin on it.

Additionally, did Warbeck actually write that letter himself, or did a someone write it for him, either from dictation or paraphrasing what he said? That could lend another layer of possible uncertainty over which form of "uncle" was employed.

Katy

Ah, now I recall a film shown to tourists in the visitor centre at Dunlewy in the Donegal Gaeltacht, which referred to a local character called Whatever-her-name-was Mhaire Mhoire (imagine the accents - anyway means Big Mary's Whatever-her-name-was*), and the narrator pronounced it Whatever-it-was Wy-sha Wo(r)sha - although what I have written as 'sh' he actually pronounced like 'j' in French.
There are so many different dialects - you only have to move a few miles and - whoosh!
Marie
*ie Whatsit daughter of Big Mary. Note the lenition of the inital 'm' there in genitive case, all ye linguists.

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
>
> Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I sympathise, Maire.
> > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie,

As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to. And you're right, it
was the James IV document where an 'uncle' is mentioned. As I quoted both
stories last time this came up, I shouldn't have got them mixed up this
time! There's still some reading to be done re Perkin, and if I change my
mind about who he was I'll certainly make that known. As it is, I can't see
any sensible way that he was the duke of York. The story adds to Richard's
bad rep, but it doesn't go any way to proving he ordered his nephews'
deaths. Those who accept Perkin as York will, of course, continue to try and
untangle this. As I don't accept that (but am open to changing my position)
it's the hoped for effect of the letter, to come up with a plausible
explanation for a) Edward V's death; and b) York's escape that interests me.
For those purposes, the "I was delivered up to a certain lord to be killed'
and 'my uncle ordered it' work beautifully. As proof of the guilt/innocence
of Richard/Buckingham, they don't mean a great deal.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:19:55 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Introduction








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
> done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella.
>
> Karen

Marie replies,
Perkin named no one in that letter to Queen Isabella. Her merely said that
he and his brother had been delivered to a certain lord to be killed.
The actual naming of Richard as the evil genius behind his brother's murder
comes from Polydore Vergil in the text of a speech - clearly invented for
dramatic purposes - supposedly made by Perkin to James IV of Scotland.
Anyhow if, for the sake of argument, Buckingham or another had decided to
kill the Princes for his own purposes, he would scarcely have explained
himself first and the boys would have assumed he was acting on Richard's
orders.

>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:50:06 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
> here in summer (July?) with a link.
>
> Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
> have meant a different one - especially under torture.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen wrote:

"Marie,
As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to. And you're right, it
was the James IV document where an 'uncle' is mentioned. As I quoted both
stories last time this came up, I shouldn't have got them mixed up this
time! There's still some reading to be done re Perkin, and if I change my
mind about who he was I'll certainly make that known. As it is, I can't see
any sensible way that he was the duke of York. The story adds to Richard's
bad rep, but it doesn't go any way to proving he ordered his nephews'
deaths. Those who accept Perkin as York will, of course, continue to try and
untangle this. As I don't accept that (but am open to changing my position)
it's the hoped for effect of the letter, to come up with a plausible
explanation for a) Edward V's death; and b) York's escape that interests me.
For those purposes, the "I was delivered up to a certain lord to be killed'
and 'my uncle ordered it' work beautifully. As proof of the guilt/innocence
of Richard/Buckingham, they don't mean a great deal."

Karen,
Maybe I misread the earlier post, but I understood that it was Polydore
Vergil who cited a letter to James IV, but we weren't certain whether there
actually WAS a letter or whether Vergil himself "wrote" it?
If it's the former, then my query about the usage for the term "uncle" MAY
have some bearing in determining who Perkin/Richard was referring to no
matter whether Perkin/Richard wrote the letter himself or it was the effort
of some group of supporters. Then there's that point about "uncle" being an
honorary term, which just further muddies the waters...
If the latter is the case however, then we have to determine whether how
much of what Vergil wrote was what really DID happen and how much was just
more Tudor "spin". I personally haven't looked into Vergil's reliability and
right now tend to look on his "History" more as if were a modern-day,
ghost-written "autobiagraphy" - there ARE facts there, finding them is the
question.
My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification.
Like you however, I'm open to being convinced one way or the other when/if
more facts become known.
Doug

We call you SAOIRSE.

FREEDOM!!!!

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
>
> Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I sympathise, Maire.
> > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

How is that pronounced? Maire.

--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> We call you SAOIRSE.
>
> FREEDOM!!!!
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
> >
> > Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I sympathise, Maire.
> > > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

'Sersha', it's a unisex name so can get double your moneys worth!!!

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> How is that pronounced? Maire.
>
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > We call you SAOIRSE.
> >
> > FREEDOM!!!!
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
> > >
> > > Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I sympathise, Maire.
> > > > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > > > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
> which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to.


Katy:

Who sez?

Er...could you please cite your sources for your unequivocal statement that "the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers?"

Katy

That's very pretty. I also like the name "Sorcha." But Gaelic is so hard to pronounce when looking at it on a page. Maire.

--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> 'Sersha', it's a unisex name so can get double your moneys worth!!!
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > How is that pronounced? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We call you SAOIRSE.
> > >
> > > FREEDOM!!!!
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
> > > >
> > > > Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I sympathise, Maire.
> > > > > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > > > > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Katy, I did go on to say that this was my view, that Perkin was an impostor.
I also said that I understood that other people don't have the same view
and, for them, finding out who was being referred to in various documents
(the lord who ordered the princes' deaths, and the uncle) is important.
There are many things that lead me to this view just as I'm sure there are
many things that lead other people to the contrary view. There is no single
source that can (on its own) clear this up, once and for all. Nothing that
any of us can point to and say "that's the evidence that he was/wasn't the
duke of York". There are a couple of good books about Perkin, including Ann
Wroe's. It was reading this, and looking at the story as a whole, that's led
me to my (current) conclusion. (Which I've said several times now is not set
in stone. I don't think it can be, either way. My 'unequivocal' statement is
no more or less unequivocal than those made by people who believe he was the
duke of York.) The vagueness of the stories of Perkin's origin (both as
prince and not); the lack of lasting support amongst the nobility; the
failure to rescue him when things were going badly; the lack of support from
ordinary English people: All this points to a young man that some people
wanted to believe was the prince, but that belief just couldn't be
sustained. I suspect it was mainly because (whether true or not) there was a
strong, unshakeable feeling in England that both the princes were long dead.
Perkin just wasn't convincing enough, mainly because he didn't have the
confidence in himself-as-prince to carry it off. That's suggested partly
from his disastrous attempts at command and from his unwillingness, once he
was captured for the second time, to continue with the story. Even Margaret
of Burgundy abandoned him in the end, probably with a heavy heart. And I
wonder if she'd have done this so readily, and I know she was in a most
difficult position, if Perkin was truly her nephew.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:10:39 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Introduction








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
> which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to.

Katy:

Who sez?

Er...could you please cite your sources for your unequivocal statement that
"the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers?"

Katy

I have wondered if PW may have been a love child of Edward's since there seems to be a resemblence, but that could also be coincidental. Probably no way to prove it either way, though, wo dna.
Virginia



-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction




Katy, I did go on to say that this was my view, that Perkin was an impostor.
I also said that I understood that other people don't have the same view
and, for them, finding out who was being referred to in various documents
(the lord who ordered the princes' deaths, and the uncle) is important.
There are many things that lead me to this view just as I'm sure there are
many things that lead other people to the contrary view. There is no single
source that can (on its own) clear this up, once and for all. Nothing that
any of us can point to and say "that's the evidence that he was/wasn't the
duke of York". There are a couple of good books about Perkin, including Ann
Wroe's. It was reading this, and looking at the story as a whole, that's led
me to my (current) conclusion. (Which I've said several times now is not set
in stone. I don't think it can be, either way. My 'unequivocal' statement is
no more or less unequivocal than those made by people who believe he was the
duke of York.) The vagueness of the stories of Perkin's origin (both as
prince and not); the lack of lasting support amongst the nobility; the
failure to rescue him when things were going badly; the lack of support from
ordinary English people: All this points to a young man that some people
wanted to believe was the prince, but that belief just couldn't be
sustained. I suspect it was mainly because (whether true or not) there was a
strong, unshakeable feeling in England that both the princes were long dead.
Perkin just wasn't convincing enough, mainly because he didn't have the
confidence in himself-as-prince to carry it off. That's suggested partly
from his disastrous attempts at command and from his unwillingness, once he
was captured for the second time, to continue with the story. Even Margaret
of Burgundy abandoned him in the end, probably with a heavy heart. And I
wonder if she'd have done this so readily, and I know she was in a most
difficult position, if Perkin was truly her nephew.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:10:39 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Introduction

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>; , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
> which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to.

Katy:

Who sez?

Er...could you please cite your sources for your unequivocal statement that
"the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers?"

Katy

Talking about DNA, why didn't they try to math R3's with E4? It would make more sense, no?

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

On Dec 14, 2012, at 4:39 PM, fairerichard3@... wrote:

>
> I have wondered if PW may have been a love child of Edward's since there seems to be a resemblence, but that could also be coincidental. Probably no way to prove it either way, though, wo dna.
> Virginia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 2:23 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
> Katy, I did go on to say that this was my view, that Perkin was an impostor.
> I also said that I understood that other people don't have the same view
> and, for them, finding out who was being referred to in various documents
> (the lord who ordered the princes' deaths, and the uncle) is important.
> There are many things that lead me to this view just as I'm sure there are
> many things that lead other people to the contrary view. There is no single
> source that can (on its own) clear this up, once and for all. Nothing that
> any of us can point to and say "that's the evidence that he was/wasn't the
> duke of York". There are a couple of good books about Perkin, including Ann
> Wroe's. It was reading this, and looking at the story as a whole, that's led
> me to my (current) conclusion. (Which I've said several times now is not set
> in stone. I don't think it can be, either way. My 'unequivocal' statement is
> no more or less unequivocal than those made by people who believe he was the
> duke of York.) The vagueness of the stories of Perkin's origin (both as
> prince and not); the lack of lasting support amongst the nobility; the
> failure to rescue him when things were going badly; the lack of support from
> ordinary English people: All this points to a young man that some people
> wanted to believe was the prince, but that belief just couldn't be
> sustained. I suspect it was mainly because (whether true or not) there was a
> strong, unshakeable feeling in England that both the princes were long dead.
> Perkin just wasn't convincing enough, mainly because he didn't have the
> confidence in himself-as-prince to carry it off. That's suggested partly
> from his disastrous attempts at command and from his unwillingness, once he
> was captured for the second time, to continue with the story. Even Margaret
> of Burgundy abandoned him in the end, probably with a heavy heart. And I
> wonder if she'd have done this so readily, and I know she was in a most
> difficult position, if Perkin was truly her nephew.
>
> Karen
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:10:39 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>; , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
> > which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to.
>
> Katy:
>
> Who sez?
>
> Er...could you please cite your sources for your unequivocal statement that
> "the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers?"
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Katy, I did go on to say that this was my view, that Perkin was an impostor.
> I also said that I understood that other people don't have the same view
> and, for them, finding out who was being referred to in various documents
> (the lord who ordered the princes' deaths, and the uncle) is important.
> There are many things that lead me to this view just as I'm sure there are many things that lead other people to the contrary view.

Katy:

Oh, I see. What you meant to say was "As [in my considered opinion] the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers...."

Katy

________________________________
From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012, 17:27
Subject: Re: Introduction


 
'Sersha', it's a unisex name so can get double your moneys worth!!!

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> How is that pronounced? Maire.
>
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > We call you SAOIRSE.
> >
> > FREEDOM!!!!
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I had a Gaelic teacher in NYC years ago, and he insisted my name was pronounced: Moy'sha. Bleech!
> > >
> > > Save us from our parents and their ideas of "pretty names," lol. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I sympathise, Maire.
> > > > My mother was Irish and named Mary for her grandmother, Maire. She called me Marie but it's pronounced Mah-ree, and I also get called Maire sometimes by people who know the Irish version of the name. But to compicate things even further my mother was from Donegal and there they pronounce it My-ra or Maya (as in not the Incas), not Maura.
> > > > I've been called Marie as in Maree, Myra, Mary, Maria, and by certain school teachers, strangely enough, Sheila and Bernadette.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No problem. Everybody gets it wrong! Maire.
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okee Dokee Blancy....Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No probs Eileen, can you email me though, I can't seem to send attachments from here? Unless I am REVELLING in my Luddite incompetence of course; that's not impossible! lol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS: Maire, apologies for Anglecising your name back there, BTW!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Blancy.....Could I have the article please...thanks...Eileen
> > > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:30, blancsanglier1452 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie (and anyone else who wants in) I've got that article as a .pdf- if you want it, email me & I'll send back. Hopefully ;)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Welcome! Nice to have you aboard! Did you go through the book lists on the Richard the Third Society website? There are so many books out there that will help you draw some conclusions. Also, try a simple search on Amazon. The well-written reviews will lead you to the best books.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is the article you site available on line? I'd love to read it. Maire.
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good morning/afternoon all. I am new to this forum and the Richard III cause. From my reading, I seriously question the conventional history of HM and his guilt over the Princes in the Tower; Hentry Tudor seems to have had more to gain by their deaths than Richard. Can anyone further my speculation in this area?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have also come across an interesting paper:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
> > > > > > > > > > > Volume 8, February 1994
> > > > > > > > > > > A.S. Hargreaves, R.I.MacLeod
> > > > > > > > > > > "Did Edward V suffer from histiocytosis X?"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Based upon the x-rays taken in 1933, of the bones discovered in the Tower. It does not further Richard's cause, but I found it somewhat interesting in light of - was it More? - stating that Edward (V) was suffering from an illness of the jaw.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for any information.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > merriann
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Doug wrote:
"My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't
die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification."

I don't have a strong opinion on what happened to the princes. I think it
not particularly consistent with what we know of Richard for him to have
ordered their deaths. On the other hand, people act out of character from
time to time, especially when under stress. I haven't stated here (or
anywhere, for that matter) an opinion on what happened to those boys, one
way or another. I don't think they were left lying around the Tower (say)
for Henry VII to find and despatch, either. According to Wroe, his attempts
to find (or, failing that, to manufacture) a history for Perkin suggests he
had no idea where they were, or if they were alive or dead.

For me, it's not about who I think is more truthful. It's very hard, from
this distance in time, to get much sense of that. Perkin doesn't ring true
for me in a number of areas. Henry VII's treatment of him is most
interesting. He was treated quite well for much of his time as Henry's
prisoner. The extreme brutality he was subjected to in the end came after an
escape attempt which, like everything Perkin attempted, was pretty much
doomed to fail. He attracted no lasting support, and certainly none from the
commons of England. They might have been tired of the whole thing or perhaps
there was a collective understanding that the princes were dead. (Whether
they were or not.) Maybe his backers thought he would enter England and be
swept to London and the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but that
certainly didn't happen. Not a great deal of time and energy, it would
seem,was spent on any kind of military training. He was useless as a
commander and fled his few supporters three times. It's Perkins' behaviour
and actions that have led me to my current conclusion. When things were
going well, and he was living the high life in Europe and especially
Scotland, where he found himself with a beautiful wife, he seems to have
been very convincing. When things were going badly, he fell to pieces, as if
he couldn't sustain his persona when the stakes were high. It feels to me
that he wasn't attempting to win HIS crown, but to do what he'd been briefed
(but not trained) to do.

I don't accept the version of Perkin's origins that's come down to us
either. There are too many holes in it and his 'mother's' silence calls it
into serious question. Margaret of York didn't (so far as we know) clarify
anything and quietly abandoned him at the end. She wasn't in a particularly
strong position to do otherwise, and she wasn't the only one who abandoned
him, but for me that's the most compelling 'evidence' that he wasn't truly
her nephew. It would be extremely hard for anyone to 'prove' Perkin wasn't
the duke of York. On balance of evidence, though, I think it highly
unlikely.

Karen

Hi, Karen, Doug and everyone -
I've just downloaded Weir's snooker (rofl - what i typed was 'Wroe's book ' - so much for autocorrect, lol!) for my kindle, so would be interested to hear more of what you think of her book.
What you say may be true, Karen. On the other hand the prospect of being hung, etc. is surely a powerful disencentive for a commoner to rise up. That doesn't necessarily mean that Perkin wasn't Richard. Likewise with his aunt Margaret. It may have been Perkin's character that was lacking, regardless of his true identity. That's my thinking at this point, anyway.
TTFN (smile),
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: Karen Clark
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 13:08:27 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction

Doug wrote:
"My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't
die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification."

I don't have a strong opinion on what happened to the princes. I think it
not particularly consistent with what we know of Richard for him to have
ordered their deaths. On the other hand, people act out of character from
time to time, especially when under stress. I haven't stated here (or
anywhere, for that matter) an opinion on what happened to those boys, one
way or another. I don't think they were left lying around the Tower (say)
for Henry VII to find and despatch, either. According to Wroe, his attempts
to find (or, failing that, to manufacture) a history for Perkin suggests he
had no idea where they were, or if they were alive or dead.

For me, it's not about who I think is more truthful. It's very hard, from
this distance in time, to get much sense of that. Perkin doesn't ring true
for me in a number of areas. Henry VII's treatment of him is most
interesting. He was treated quite well for much of his time as Henry's
prisoner. The extreme brutality he was subjected to in the end came after an
escape attempt which, like everything Perkin attempted, was pretty much
doomed to fail. He attracted no lasting support, and certainly none from the
commons of England. They might have been tired of the whole thing or perhaps
there was a collective understanding that the princes were dead. (Whether
they were or not.) Maybe his backers thought he would enter England and be
swept to London and the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but that
certainly didn't happen. Not a great deal of time and energy, it would
seem,was spent on any kind of military training. He was useless as a
commander and fled his few supporters three times. It's Perkins' behaviour
and actions that have led me to my current conclusion. When things were
going well, and he was living the high life in Europe and especially
Scotland, where he found himself with a beautiful wife, he seems to have
been very convincing. When things were going badly, he fell to pieces, as if
he couldn't sustain his persona when the stakes were high. It feels to me
that he wasn't attempting to win HIS crown, but to do what he'd been briefed
(but not trained) to do.

I don't accept the version of Perkin's origins that's come down to us
either. There are too many holes in it and his 'mother's' silence calls it
into serious question. Margaret of York didn't (so far as we know) clarify
anything and quietly abandoned him at the end. She wasn't in a particularly
strong position to do otherwise, and she wasn't the only one who abandoned
him, but for me that's the most compelling 'evidence' that he wasn't truly
her nephew. It would be extremely hard for anyone to 'prove' Perkin wasn't
the duke of York. On balance of evidence, though, I think it highly
unlikely.

Karen

Joanne

I hope you enjoy Weir's snooker as much as I did. There are those who don't
like Wroe's style, preferring a 'straight' biography, but I loved it. She
has copious endnotes but not, sadly, connected to the text. (There are page
numbers, but going through the endnotes after the fact, rather than as I was
reading, was a little disjointed and annoying.) There's another good book
about Perkin, author's name temporarily escaping me, that I need to get
eventually. I bought Wroe's 'Perkin' out of order as the deal was just too
good to pass up! (I'm still not quite out of 1456 yet. Two more documents
from Magdalen College and I can move on to 1457!)

Wroe comes to no firm conclusion about Perkin's identity and doesn't have a
particular thesis she wants her reader to come to agree with.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:54:37 -0400
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction






Hi, Karen, Doug and everyone -
I've just downloaded Weir's snooker (rofl - what i typed was 'Wroe's book '
- so much for autocorrect, lol!) for my kindle, so would be interested to
hear more of what you think of her book.
What you say may be true, Karen. On the other hand the prospect of being
hung, etc. is surely a powerful disencentive for a commoner to rise up. That
doesn't necessarily mean that Perkin wasn't Richard. Likewise with his aunt
Margaret. It may have been Perkin's character that was lacking, regardless
of his true identity. That's my thinking at this point, anyway.
TTFN (smile),

It's a great book, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.  As for Perkin's character if he really was young Richard - well to be honest I think neither Edward or George seem to have had much character really do they?  They both seem to have been selfish, licentious and George was downright treacherous. 
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 13:54
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction

 
Hi, Karen, Doug and everyone -
I've just downloaded Weir's snooker (rofl - what i typed was 'Wroe's book ' - so much for autocorrect, lol!) for my kindle, so would be interested to hear more of what you think of her book.
What you say may be true, Karen. On the other hand the prospect of being hung, etc. is surely a powerful disencentive for a commoner to rise up. That doesn't necessarily mean that Perkin wasn't Richard. Likewise with his aunt Margaret. It may have been Perkin's character that was lacking, regardless of his true identity. That's my thinking at this point, anyway.
TTFN (smile),
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: Karen Clark
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 13:08:27 GMT
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction

Doug wrote:
"My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't
die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification."

I don't have a strong opinion on what happened to the princes. I think it
not particularly consistent with what we know of Richard for him to have
ordered their deaths. On the other hand, people act out of character from
time to time, especially when under stress. I haven't stated here (or
anywhere, for that matter) an opinion on what happened to those boys, one
way or another. I don't think they were left lying around the Tower (say)
for Henry VII to find and despatch, either. According to Wroe, his attempts
to find (or, failing that, to manufacture) a history for Perkin suggests he
had no idea where they were, or if they were alive or dead.

For me, it's not about who I think is more truthful. It's very hard, from
this distance in time, to get much sense of that. Perkin doesn't ring true
for me in a number of areas. Henry VII's treatment of him is most
interesting. He was treated quite well for much of his time as Henry's
prisoner. The extreme brutality he was subjected to in the end came after an
escape attempt which, like everything Perkin attempted, was pretty much
doomed to fail. He attracted no lasting support, and certainly none from the
commons of England. They might have been tired of the whole thing or perhaps
there was a collective understanding that the princes were dead. (Whether
they were or not.) Maybe his backers thought he would enter England and be
swept to London and the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but that
certainly didn't happen. Not a great deal of time and energy, it would
seem,was spent on any kind of military training. He was useless as a
commander and fled his few supporters three times. It's Perkins' behaviour
and actions that have led me to my current conclusion. When things were
going well, and he was living the high life in Europe and especially
Scotland, where he found himself with a beautiful wife, he seems to have
been very convincing. When things were going badly, he fell to pieces, as if
he couldn't sustain his persona when the stakes were high. It feels to me
that he wasn't attempting to win HIS crown, but to do what he'd been briefed
(but not trained) to do.

I don't accept the version of Perkin's origins that's come down to us
either. There are too many holes in it and his 'mother's' silence calls it
into serious question. Margaret of York didn't (so far as we know) clarify
anything and quietly abandoned him at the end. She wasn't in a particularly
strong position to do otherwise, and she wasn't the only one who abandoned
him, but for me that's the most compelling 'evidence' that he wasn't truly
her nephew. It would be extremely hard for anyone to 'prove' Perkin wasn't
the duke of York. On balance of evidence, though, I think it highly
unlikely.

Karen

Hi Karen and Johanne,

Karen, I think yours was a very good analysis.  I tend more towards thinking that Perkin might indeed have been Richard, but I think the person we glimpse in the reports on Perkin would have made a hopeless king.  A repeat of Henry VI or even worse.  Questionable legality (and it would have been questionable, Richard of York having been declared a bastard and the question mark about this man's identity would have remained) is not the only qualification for a successful king.


Dorothea



________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction


 
Hi, Karen, Doug and everyone -
I've just downloaded Weir's snooker (rofl - what i typed was 'Wroe's book ' - so much for autocorrect, lol!) for my kindle, so would be interested to hear more of what you think of her book.
What you say may be true, Karen. On the other hand the prospect of being hung, etc. is surely a powerful disencentive for a commoner to rise up. That doesn't necessarily mean that Perkin wasn't Richard. Likewise with his aunt Margaret. It may have been Perkin's character that was lacking, regardless of his true identity. That's my thinking at this point, anyway.
TTFN (smile),
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: Karen Clark
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 13:08:27 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction

Doug wrote:
"My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't
die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification."

I don't have a strong opinion on what happened to the princes. I think it
not particularly consistent with what we know of Richard for him to have
ordered their deaths. On the other hand, people act out of character from
time to time, especially when under stress. I haven't stated here (or
anywhere, for that matter) an opinion on what happened to those boys, one
way or another. I don't think they were left lying around the Tower (say)
for Henry VII to find and despatch, either. According to Wroe, his attempts
to find (or, failing that, to manufacture) a history for Perkin suggests he
had no idea where they were, or if they were alive or dead.

For me, it's not about who I think is more truthful. It's very hard, from
this distance in time, to get much sense of that. Perkin doesn't ring true
for me in a number of areas. Henry VII's treatment of him is most
interesting. He was treated quite well for much of his time as Henry's
prisoner. The extreme brutality he was subjected to in the end came after an
escape attempt which, like everything Perkin attempted, was pretty much
doomed to fail. He attracted no lasting support, and certainly none from the
commons of England. They might have been tired of the whole thing or perhaps
there was a collective understanding that the princes were dead. (Whether
they were or not.) Maybe his backers thought he would enter England and be
swept to London and the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but that
certainly didn't happen. Not a great deal of time and energy, it would
seem,was spent on any kind of military training. He was useless as a
commander and fled his few supporters three times. It's Perkins' behaviour
and actions that have led me to my current conclusion. When things were
going well, and he was living the high life in Europe and especially
Scotland, where he found himself with a beautiful wife, he seems to have
been very convincing. When things were going badly, he fell to pieces, as if
he couldn't sustain his persona when the stakes were high. It feels to me
that he wasn't attempting to win HIS crown, but to do what he'd been briefed
(but not trained) to do.

I don't accept the version of Perkin's origins that's come down to us
either. There are too many holes in it and his 'mother's' silence calls it
into serious question. Margaret of York didn't (so far as we know) clarify
anything and quietly abandoned him at the end. She wasn't in a particularly
strong position to do otherwise, and she wasn't the only one who abandoned
him, but for me that's the most compelling 'evidence' that he wasn't truly
her nephew. It would be extremely hard for anyone to 'prove' Perkin wasn't
the duke of York. On balance of evidence, though, I think it highly
unlikely.

Karen

Dorothea, I have your Perkiin article but haven't yet read it.(I'v got a
backlog.) I'm looking forward to it.

Karen

From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:24:01 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction






Hi Karen and Johanne,

Karen, I think yours was a very good analysis. I tend more towards thinking
that Perkin might indeed have been Richard, but I think the person we
glimpse in the reports on Perkin would have made a hopeless king. A repeat
of Henry VI or even worse. Questionable legality (and it would have been
questionable, Richard of York having been declared a bastard and the
question mark about this man's identity would have remained) is not the only
qualification for a successful king.

Dorothea

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction



Hi, Karen, Doug and everyone -
I've just downloaded Weir's snooker (rofl - what i typed was 'Wroe's book '
- so much for autocorrect, lol!) for my kindle, so would be interested to
hear more of what you think of her book.
What you say may be true, Karen. On the other hand the prospect of being
hung, etc. is surely a powerful disencentive for a commoner to rise up. That
doesn't necessarily mean that Perkin wasn't Richard. Likewise with his aunt
Margaret. It may have been Perkin's character that was lacking, regardless
of his true identity. That's my thinking at this point, anyway.
TTFN (smile),
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: Karen Clark
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 13:08:27 GMT
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction

Doug wrote:
"My personal opinion is that Richard DIDN'T kill his nephews, they didn't
die
while under his protection and that Perkin/Richard (better still,
Richard/Perkin) was quite likely exactly who he claimed to be. As the
question about Richard/Perkin currently stands at who do you believe to be
more truthful: Henry Tudor or Richard/Perkin, I come down on
Richard/Perkin's side. Henry and his historians just haven't proven that
Richard/Perkin wasn't who he claimed to be and have taken 'way too many
liberties with the known facts to be trusted without some other form of
verification."

I don't have a strong opinion on what happened to the princes. I think it
not particularly consistent with what we know of Richard for him to have
ordered their deaths. On the other hand, people act out of character from
time to time, especially when under stress. I haven't stated here (or
anywhere, for that matter) an opinion on what happened to those boys, one
way or another. I don't think they were left lying around the Tower (say)
for Henry VII to find and despatch, either. According to Wroe, his attempts
to find (or, failing that, to manufacture) a history for Perkin suggests he
had no idea where they were, or if they were alive or dead.

For me, it's not about who I think is more truthful. It's very hard, from
this distance in time, to get much sense of that. Perkin doesn't ring true
for me in a number of areas. Henry VII's treatment of him is most
interesting. He was treated quite well for much of his time as Henry's
prisoner. The extreme brutality he was subjected to in the end came after an
escape attempt which, like everything Perkin attempted, was pretty much
doomed to fail. He attracted no lasting support, and certainly none from the
commons of England. They might have been tired of the whole thing or perhaps
there was a collective understanding that the princes were dead. (Whether
they were or not.) Maybe his backers thought he would enter England and be
swept to London and the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but that
certainly didn't happen. Not a great deal of time and energy, it would
seem,was spent on any kind of military training. He was useless as a
commander and fled his few supporters three times. It's Perkins' behaviour
and actions that have led me to my current conclusion. When things were
going well, and he was living the high life in Europe and especially
Scotland, where he found himself with a beautiful wife, he seems to have
been very convincing. When things were going badly, he fell to pieces, as if
he couldn't sustain his persona when the stakes were high. It feels to me
that he wasn't attempting to win HIS crown, but to do what he'd been briefed
(but not trained) to do.

I don't accept the version of Perkin's origins that's come down to us
either. There are too many holes in it and his 'mother's' silence calls it
into serious question. Margaret of York didn't (so far as we know) clarify
anything and quietly abandoned him at the end. She wasn't in a particularly
strong position to do otherwise, and she wasn't the only one who abandoned
him, but for me that's the most compelling 'evidence' that he wasn't truly
her nephew. It would be extremely hard for anyone to 'prove' Perkin wasn't
the duke of York. On balance of evidence, though, I think it highly
unlikely.

Karen

Marie replies:
Hi Karen,
I have one overriding, although perhaps rather irritating, principle, and that is to give myself the best possible chance of drawing the right conclusions by trying like hell to keep an open mind at least until I've studied every source that can be found*, and distinguishing at all times between what we know from solid sources from what we don't. So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James of Scotland. The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III.

*There's always as certain inertia in the human system, and beliefs, once formed, tend to be hard to shift.



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
>
> As the whole thing was made up by Perkin's backers, it really doesn't matter
> which uncle anyone assumes might have been referred to. And you're right, it
> was the James IV document where an 'uncle' is mentioned. As I quoted both
> stories last time this came up, I shouldn't have got them mixed up this
> time! There's still some reading to be done re Perkin, and if I change my
> mind about who he was I'll certainly make that known. As it is, I can't see
> any sensible way that he was the duke of York. The story adds to Richard's
> bad rep, but it doesn't go any way to proving he ordered his nephews'
> deaths. Those who accept Perkin as York will, of course, continue to try and
> untangle this. As I don't accept that (but am open to changing my position)
> it's the hoped for effect of the letter, to come up with a plausible
> explanation for a) Edward V's death; and b) York's escape that interests me.
> For those purposes, the "I was delivered up to a certain lord to be killed'
> and 'my uncle ordered it' work beautifully. As proof of the guilt/innocence
> of Richard/Buckingham, they don't mean a great deal.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:19:55 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Stephen, Perkin's claim that an uncle did his brother in (or ordered it
> > done) wasn't made under torture but in a letter to Queen Isabella.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Marie replies,
> Perkin named no one in that letter to Queen Isabella. Her merely said that
> he and his brother had been delivered to a certain lord to be killed.
> The actual naming of Richard as the evil genius behind his brother's murder
> comes from Polydore Vergil in the text of a speech - clearly invented for
> dramatic purposes - supposedly made by Perkin to James IV of Scotland.
> Anyhow if, for the sake of argument, Buckingham or another had decided to
> kill the Princes for his own purposes, he would scarcely have explained
> himself first and the boys would have assumed he was acting on Richard's
> orders.
>
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:50:06 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Au contraire, he did deny killing them - as Ed Simons (webdragyn) posted
> > here in summer (July?) with a link.
> >
> > Furthermore, Richard was far from their only uncle so Perkin could easily
> > have meant a different one - especially under torture.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

Marie wrote:

"I have one overriding, although perhaps rather irritating, principle, and
that is to give myself the best possible chance of drawing the right
conclusions by trying like hell to keep an open mind"

So do I, Marie. Which is why I've said several times, about the matter of
Perkin and others, that my current conclusion/s (sometimes very very
tentative) are open to change. I have also said that on this, and other
matters, I have much more to read. There are times when it seems the
suggestion that I'm not 'open minded' coincides with a conclusion or opinion
(tentative or otherwise) that doesn't accord with the majority. If you
believe any of my conclusions or opinions to be wrong, you are free (and
welcome) to offer a different perspective. Resorting to 'you're not open
minded' when the evidence points overwhelmingly to the contrary, causes a
good deal of frustration.

Marie wrote:

"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity"

Which is, of course, entirely your right. I don't wait until my opinion is
set in stone before discussing it. Discussing ideas is an important part in
the process of forming conclusions.

"Perkin's failure to name Richard as behind the murder of Edward V makes
sense whether he was Richard Duke of York or whether he wasn't because
whoever he was he needed the widest possible support in England, ie he
needed to appeal to all Henry VII's enemies, including those who had been
supporters of Richard III."

This is undisputed and, by far, the least part of the story that has formed
my current view of Perkin.

Marie wrote:

*There's always as certain inertia in the human system, and beliefs, once
formed, tend to be hard to shift."

You are aiming this at entirely the wrong person. I have very few 'beliefs'
about history that are 'hard to shift'. While I am currently (for example)
of the opinion that Richard probably didn't order the deaths of his nephews,
I am open to the possibility that he did and, with the right sort of
evidence, that opinion might 'shift'. The same goes for Perkin. I have been
very careful throughout this discussion to state clearly that my view of
Perkin as impostor is open to change.

Karen

Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Doug said:
>
> "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
>
> This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
>
> This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> working from.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> of Scotland."
>
> Doug here:
> So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> by someone who wasn't present!
> Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
>
> "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
>
> That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> Doug
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Marie responds:
> It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> > Doug said:
> >
> > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> >
> > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> >
> > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > working from.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > of Scotland."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > by someone who wasn't present!
> > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> >
> > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> >
> > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > Doug
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

This is simply a speech imputed to him by Vergil - not a letter.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Yahoo
To:
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction



That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Marie responds:
> It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> > Doug said:
> >
> > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> >
> > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> >
> > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > working from.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > of Scotland."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > by someone who wasn't present!
> > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> >
> > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> >
> > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > Doug
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

We are back to square one.....

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:49 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> This is simply a speech imputed to him by Vergil - not a letter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Yahoo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
> That's damning.
> If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Marie responds:
> > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug said:
> > >
> > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > >
> > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > >
> > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > working from.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > //snip//
> > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > of Scotland."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > >
> > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > >
> > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > Doug
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> That's damning.
> If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Marie responds:
> > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug said:
> > >
> > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > >
> > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > >
> > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > working from.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > //snip//
> > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > of Scotland."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > >
> > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > >
> > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > Doug
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Well that would go some way to explaining a story that does not ring true ...because I find it rather unbelievable that Margaret would be OK about her protegee maligning her brother in such a way. Margaret as we all know was a staunch Plantagenet and defender of her family and although keen to get HT off the throne and a member of her family back on it its unlikely that it would be at the expense of Richard being accused of murdering his nephew. Eileen




--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:

This is simply a speech imputed to him by Vergil - not a letter.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Yahoo
To:
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction



That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

Hi, Eileen -
Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

Marie wrote:

"It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal
uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's
translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil,
and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring
because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
'For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons
his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached
to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it
happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our
line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized
with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be
killed together.' (p. 99 in my copy)"

Thank you very much, Marie!
So what we have here is a conversation, based on undetermined (if any)
sources, which was written down by someone who wasn't present and who was
writing a "History" for Richard's opponent? I'd hate to take that sort of
"testimony" into a court!
Even allowing for the differences between now and then in writing (and
sourcing!) history, that's taking an awful lot for granted. One would think
that anyone writing a history nowadays, and using sources such as Vergil,
would at least use qualifiers...

Doug

Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen


--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:

Hi, Eileen -
Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!

BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen


--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:

Hi, Eileen -
Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.

Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.

Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:

LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!

BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen


--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:

Hi, Eileen -
Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Introduction

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish.  Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work.  Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like.  I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!)  They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
Subject: Re: Introduction

 
There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.

Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:

LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!

BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Introduction

Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:

Hi, Eileen -
Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Introduction

Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".

Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.

Eileen


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Ishita,
Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:

That's damning.
If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/

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

On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:


Marie responds:
It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
"For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:

Doug said:

"That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"

This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.

This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
working from.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Introduction







Marie wrote:

//snip//
"So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
of Scotland."

Doug here:
So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
by someone who wasn't present!
Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
found in any version of Vergil's "History"?

"The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."

That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
Doug
Doug

And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
Paul

On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:

> You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
> There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
>
> Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
>
> BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> Loyaulte me lie,
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
> Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen -
> Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> Loyaulte me lie,
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
> Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
> Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
>
> Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Hi Ishita,
> Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
> That's damning.
> If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Marie responds:
> It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Doug said:
>
> "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
>
> This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
>
> This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> working from.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> of Scotland."
>
> Doug here:
> So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> by someone who wasn't present!
> Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
>
> "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
>
> That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> Doug
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal belongings in order to help them...

A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
> Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> Paul
>
> On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
>
> > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
> >
> > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
> >
> > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Eileen -
> > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
> > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> >
> > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ishita,
> > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> > That's damning.
> > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie responds:
> > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Doug said:
> >
> > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> >
> > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> >
> > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > working from.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > of Scotland."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > by someone who wasn't present!
> > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> >
> > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> >
> > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > Doug
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit, screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
>
> A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
> > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > >
> > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
> > >
> > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
> > >
> > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
> > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > >
> > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ishita,
> > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > > That's damning.
> > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie responds:
> > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug said:
> > >
> > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > >
> > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > >
> > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > working from.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > //snip//
> > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > of Scotland."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > >
> > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > >
> > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > Doug
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I don't remember that scene from Elizabeth R....perhaps if I had I would not have been so very disappointed when I saw it in the Dan Snow documentary....well I would have been prewarned at least as it was it was the first I had ever heard of it.. Here is a link to the documentary on UTube...hopefully...Eileen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3stf20X10



--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit, screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
> >
> > A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
> > > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
> > > >
> > > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > >
> > > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > >
> > > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
> > > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > > >
> > > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ishita,
> > > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's damning.
> > > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> > > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie responds:
> > > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Doug said:
> > > >
> > > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > > >
> > > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > > >
> > > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > > working from.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > //snip//
> > > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > > of Scotland."
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > > >
> > > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > > >
> > > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > > Doug
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Elizabeth R was first run here in America in the early 70s. It blew my mind! I still love it and have it on DVD. It made Jackson a superstar here. Elizabeth is quite flawed in the series - although very brave and strong. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I don't remember that scene from Elizabeth R....perhaps if I had I would not have been so very disappointed when I saw it in the Dan Snow documentary....well I would have been prewarned at least as it was it was the first I had ever heard of it.. Here is a link to the documentary on UTube...hopefully...Eileen
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3stf20X10
>
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit, screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
> > >
> > > A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
> > > > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > > > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that Queen
> > > > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Ishita,
> > > > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > > > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's damning.
> > > > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > > > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> > > > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie responds:
> > > > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > > > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > > > >
> > > > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > > > working from.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > //snip//
> > > > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > > > of Scotland."
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > > > >
> > > > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > > > Doug
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

We first saw it in 70s, too, along with the mini-series on the wives of
Henry VIII, featuring Keith Mitchell -- also very good. Unpretentious, plain,
clear, a little stage-bound, but honest about that, and with wonderful
actors making use of good writing.

(It was a good time for that sort of production: our family ate those two
up, and also loved _I, Claudius_ ("I, Clavdivs", we called it), and _The
Pallisers_. For some reason we never hooked into _Upstairs Downstairs_.)

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Elizabeth R was first run here in America in the early 70s. It blew my
> mind! I still love it and have it on DVD. It made Jackson a superstar here.
> Elizabeth is quite flawed in the series - although very brave and strong.
> Maire.
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't remember that scene from Elizabeth R....perhaps if I had I would
> not have been so very disappointed when I saw it in the Dan Snow
> documentary....well I would have been prewarned at least as it was it was
> the first I had ever heard of it.. Here is a link to the documentary on
> UTube...hopefully...Eileen
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3stf20X10
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland"
> <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent
> Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors
> are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit,
> screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda
> Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after
> watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had
> survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help
> whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold
> some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
> > > >
> > > > A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the
> battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a
> shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though
> he killed her mother.
> > > > > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people
> believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > > > > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as
> afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish.
> Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a
> thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the
> period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how
> people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about
> how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They
> seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep
> away the rest of them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the
> executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head
> on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with
> the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really
> and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it
> is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But
> certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and
> the Tudors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the
> future fates of their children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne
> Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't
> good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path,
> whether they were legit or not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the
> aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it
> was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal
> Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman
> botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says
> that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man
> the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle
> endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe
> it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne
> Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > > > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who
> could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it
> would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face
> meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that
> neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that
> H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely
> this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep
> through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been
> necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince
> Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not
> have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him
> aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to
> ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's
> silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's
> solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt
> Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still
> regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth
> d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe
> points out that Queen
> > > > > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable
> household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a
> child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to
> recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely
> if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince
> them that he was indeed Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ishita,
> > > > > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of
> Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it
> was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he
> took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem
> to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would
> see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to
> Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of
> blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from
> the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he
> may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the
> basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to
> Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even
> identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European
> courts.
> > > > > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to
> murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their
> orders were coming from first.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard
> Yahoo wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's damning.
> > > > > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was
> guilty.
> > > > > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile
> these two things?
> > > > > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not
> making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie responds:
> > > > > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and
> maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked
> Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted
> by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a
> red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an
> "uncle":-
> > > > > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian
> of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make
> more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to
> my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the
> guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the
> cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother
> Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen
> Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doug said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's
> need for
> > > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still
> might be
> > > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham
> being
> > > > > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as
> Richard
> > > > > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who
> would have been
> > > > > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant
> chronicles and
> > > > > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully
> informed. We talk
> > > > > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any
> source that might
> > > > > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s
> Manner and
> > > > > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c)
> are all
> > > > > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same
> thinking that
> > > > > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question,
> he wasn't
> > > > > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of
> the whole
> > > > > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open
> the
> > > > > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably)
> straight
> > > > > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source
> Vergil was
> > > > > > working from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing
> conclusions
> > > > > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant
> letter to
> > > > > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin
> said to James
> > > > > > of Scotland."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand
> and Isabella
> > > > > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James
> of Scotland?
> > > > > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep
> it in mind
> > > > > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation -
> written down
> > > > > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > > > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy
> of the
> > > > > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with
> James can be
> > > > > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name
> Richard as
> > > > > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard
> Duke of
> > > > > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the
> widest
> > > > > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry
> VII's
> > > > > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's
> need for
> > > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still
> might be
> > > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > Doug
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

I had seen Jackson as Charlotte Corday in Marat/Sade; fabulous performance. The play is now available on DVD. She and Ian Richardson both went on to do great work.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: Henry VIII Executions was Re: Introduction


 
Elizabeth R was first run here in America in the early 70s. It blew my mind! I still love it and have it on DVD. It made Jackson a superstar here. Elizabeth is quite flawed in the series - although very brave and strong. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I don't remember that scene from Elizabeth R....perhaps if I had I would not have been so very disappointed when I saw it in the Dan Snow documentary....well I would have been prewarned at least as it was it was the first I had ever heard of it.. Here is a link to the documentary on UTube...hopefully...Eileen
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3stf20X10
>
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit, screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
> > >
> > > A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he killed her mother.
> > > > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > > > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest of them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the Tudors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates of their children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether they were legit or not!
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe points out that
Queen
> > > > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he was indeed Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Ishita,
> > > > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > > > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were coming from first.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's damning.
> > > > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > > > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these two things?
> > > > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie responds:
> > > > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > > > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > > > >
> > > > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > > > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > > > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have been
> > > > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles and
> > > > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We talk
> > > > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that might
> > > > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > > > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > > > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > > > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he wasn't
> > > > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > > > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > > > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > > > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > > > > working from.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > //snip//
> > > > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing conclusions
> > > > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > > > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to James
> > > > > of Scotland."
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and Isabella
> > > > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of Scotland?
> > > > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in mind
> > > > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written down
> > > > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > > > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can be
> > > > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > > > >
> > > > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard as
> > > > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > > > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > > > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > > > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might be
> > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > > > Doug
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Sadly this has happened repeatedly through, history not just the Tudors but
even up to and beyond the first and second world wars the whole idea of
poppy day was a means of raising awareness to the plight of ex or disabled
servicemen and their families. During the reign of William and Mary the
Chelsea Pensioners were established and the Naval Hospital at Greenwich
though the plight of the ex-seaman was pitiful as many had been pressed from
their employment were left both destitute and disabled.

George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:47 AM
To:
Subject: Henry VIII Executions was Re:
Introduction





I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after watching a
documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had survived but
with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help whatsoever and were
left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold some of his personal
belongings in order to help them...

A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the battle
would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a shame
on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though he
killed her mother.
> Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people believe
she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as afraid of
getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> Paul
>
> On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
>
> > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish. Apart
from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a thoroughly
vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the period have
little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how people CAN
study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about how wonderful
the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They seem blinkered
by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep away the rest
of them.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the executioner
was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head on the block
or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with the
executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really and I
wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it is
pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But
certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and the
Tudors.
> >
> > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the future fates
of their children.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier
wrote:
> >
> > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't good for
the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path, whether
they were legit or not!
> >
> > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the aged
Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it was
because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal Pole
back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman botched
the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says that she
was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man the Tudors
really would have had something to fear!
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle endless
sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe it gave
him an ulcer even....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier
wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Eileen -
> > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who could
recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it would
surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face meeting
with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that neither RIII
nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that H7 wasn't sure
Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely this could
have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep through
Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been necessary as
there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince Richard
frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not have
wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him aside),
Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to ElV,
Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's silks
and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's
solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt
Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still
regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth
d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe
points out that Queen
> > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable household from
which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> >
> > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a child that
had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to recognise the
adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely if given the
chance to converse with them would have been able to convince them that he
was indeed Richard.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ishita,
> > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of Henry's
reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it was part
and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he took a
genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem to have
been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would see that
this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to Isabella, but
with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of blame squarely at
Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from the letter. Even Ann
Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he may have seen a copy of
a similar letter and made up the speech on the basis of it. I think that is
very likely. After all, the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely
to have been unique; similar, or even identical, letters were probably sent
out to the rulers of all the European courts.
> > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to murder the
Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their orders were
coming from first.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo
wrote:
> >
> > That's damning.
> > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was guilty.
> > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile these
two things?
> > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not making
the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie responds:
> > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and maternal
uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked Ann Wroe's
translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted by Vergil,
and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a red herring
because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an "uncle":-
> > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian of his
sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make more
attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to my
misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the
guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the cruel
tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother Edward and
I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark
wrote:
> >
> > Doug said:
> >
> > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might
be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> >
> > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham being
> > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as Richard
> > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who would have
been
> > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> >
> > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant chronicles
and
> > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully informed. We
talk
> > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any source that
might
> > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s Manner and
> > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c) are all
> > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same thinking that
> > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question, he
wasn't
> > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of the whole
> > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open the
> > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably) straight
> > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source Vergil was
> > working from.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing
conclusions
> > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant letter to
> > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin said to
James
> > of Scotland."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand and
Isabella
> > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James of
Scotland?
> > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep it in
mind
> > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation - written
down
> > by someone who wasn't present!
> > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy of the
> > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with James can
be
> > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> >
> > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name Richard
as
> > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard Duke of
> > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the widest
> > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry VII's
> > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> >
> > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's need for
> > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still might
be
> > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > Doug
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

That certainly was the golden age of British tv. Does anyone remember that there was a character in "The Pallisers" who was named Plantagenet? (They called him "Planty.") Maire.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> We first saw it in 70s, too, along with the mini-series on the wives of
> Henry VIII, featuring Keith Mitchell -- also very good. Unpretentious, plain,
> clear, a little stage-bound, but honest about that, and with wonderful
> actors making use of good writing.
>
> (It was a good time for that sort of production: our family ate those two
> up, and also loved _I, Claudius_ ("I, Clavdivs", we called it), and _The
> Pallisers_. For some reason we never hooked into _Upstairs Downstairs_.)
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Elizabeth R was first run here in America in the early 70s. It blew my
> > mind! I still love it and have it on DVD. It made Jackson a superstar here.
> > Elizabeth is quite flawed in the series - although very brave and strong.
> > Maire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't remember that scene from Elizabeth R....perhaps if I had I would
> > not have been so very disappointed when I saw it in the Dan Snow
> > documentary....well I would have been prewarned at least as it was it was
> > the first I had ever heard of it.. Here is a link to the documentary on
> > UTube...hopefully...Eileen
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3stf20X10
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland"
> > <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's an incredible scene in Elizabeth R (with the magnificent
> > Glenda Jackson) in which she is confronted with the news that her sailors
> > are homeless, destitute and starving. She throws the biggest hissy fit,
> > screeching that she doesn't want to hear any bad news. And when Glenda
> > Jackson screeches, you just want to hide under the bed in terror. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember how disenchanted I felt about Good Queen Bess after
> > watching a documentary on the Spanish Armada...English sailors that had
> > survived but with terrible wounds and missing limbs received no help
> > whatsoever and were left in such dire straits that Sir Francis Drake sold
> > some of his personal belongings in order to help them...
> > > > >
> > > > > A medal was struck.."God blew and they were scattered'....Huh...the
> > battle would never have been won but for these brave men...A disgrace and a
> > shame on Elizabeth's head she did not ensure for their wellbeing...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And Elizabeth was as bad as her father who she adored, even though
> > he killed her mother.
> > > > > > Elizabeth has a good reputation because she cleverly made people
> > believe she was wonderful! Wonderful self publicising machine she had.
> > > > > > But she was as much a tyrant as Henry, and people were just as
> > afraid of getting too close to her as they had been to her father.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 18 Dec 2012, at 21:10, liz williams wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You know I really cannot understand the Good King Hal rubbish.
> > Apart from this instance which in itself is appalling, he really was a
> > thoroughly vile piece of work. Most people who don't really study the
> > period have little idea of what he was like. I also don't understand how
> > people CAN study the Tudor period closely and yet, in effect, rave about
> > how wonderful the Tudors were (and yes David Starkey I do mean you!) They
> > seem blinkered by everything Elizabeth I did and that seems enough to sweep
> > away the rest of them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 16:30
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are lurid accounts of this lady's execution...That the
> > executioner was a novice and that Margaret either refused to lay her head
> > on the block or lost her nerve, and run around the scaffold in terror with
> > the executioner raining blows at her. It is too horrible for words really
> > and I wonder if it is the actual truth. Whatever way you slice the cake it
> > is pretty horrendous to execute an elderly lady in such a fashion. But
> > certainly it demonstrates the difference between Richard Plantagenet and
> > the Tudors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank God that Clarence and Isobel had no insight into the
> > future fates of their children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne
> > Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL, Eileen! We can always hope! However it certainly wasn't
> > good for the health of Plantagenet pretenders if they crossed Henry's path,
> > whether they were legit or not!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, changing the subject a bit, why did Brutal Hal execute the
> > aged Duchess of Salisbury? Poss spoiler alert - Jeremy Potter indicates it
> > was because Hal had been using her as bait to try to lure her son Cardinal
> > Pole back to England, but he finally gave up. JP also says the headsman
> > botched the execution, and they had to chase her around the yard. JP says
> > that she was the real Plantagenet in the family, and if she had been a man
> > the Tudors really would have had something to fear!
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:41:18 GMT
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Johanne...Im hopeful that the situation caused Weasle
> > endless sleepless nights and totally upset his equilibrium....Hey...maybe
> > it gave him an ulcer even....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne
> > Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Eileen -
> > > > > > > Yes there would have been many people, you would think, who
> > could recognize the real Richard. If there were any doubt, however, it
> > would surely not have been in H7's interest to allow them a face-to-face
> > meeting with Perkin. Just as the avail evidence seems to suggest that
> > neither RIII nor H7 were sure the boys were dead, this suggests to me that
> > H7 wasn't sure Perkin wasn't Richard the Duke of York.
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 14:02:56 GMT
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Introduction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ive asked on here before whether EofY met 'Perkin' as surely
> > this could have cleared the matter up once and for all. Having a quick peep
> > through Anne Wroe's book last night I see that this would not have been
> > necessary as there were plenty of people around that would have seen Prince
> > Richard frequently when he was a child...Morton, (who of course would not
> > have wanted him to be Richard! so perhaps in fairness we should cast him
> > aside), Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells who had been secretary to
> > ElV, Piers Courtey, who had delivered from the Wardrobe Prince Richard's
> > silks and satins, Prince Richard's attorney, Andrew Dymock, now Weasle's
> > solicitor, Katherine Lady Courtney, Richard's younger sister, his aunt
> > Elizabeth Plantagenet, the Duchess of Suffolk. All these were still
> > regularly at court. No longer at court but still alive were Elizabeth
> > d"Arcy, Richard's nurse and Dr Argentine who visited him in the Tower. Wroe
> > points out that Queen
> > > > > > > Elizabeth was 'keeping a separate and almost unvisitable
> > household from which she issued on ceremonial occasions".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given that it would be, maybe, more difficult to recognise a
> > child that had grown into manhood, 'Perkin' should have been able to
> > recognise the adults he had had contact with when he was a child and surely
> > if given the chance to converse with them would have been able to convince
> > them that he was indeed Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Ishita,
> > > > > > > Yes, having studied Vergil with regards to the earlier part of
> > Henry's reign I can say that he did deliberately embroider the truth -- it
> > was part and parcel of the art of writing humanist histories. Very often he
> > took a genuine source and embellished it or even tweaked it for what seem
> > to have been political considerations. If I had quoted the whole you would
> > see that this speech follows the tale that is told in the letter to
> > Isabella, but with the difference that here Perkin points the finger of
> > blame squarely at Richard and uses a lot of hyperbole totally absent from
> > the letter. Even Ann Wroe, who generally trusts Vergil, surmised that he
> > may have seen a copy of a similar letter and made up the speech on the
> > basis of it. I think that is very likely. After all, the letter to
> > Ferdinand and Isabella is not likely to have been unique; similar, or even
> > identical, letters were probably sent out to the rulers of all the European
> > courts.
> > > > > > > Anyhow, as I observed a while back, if someone had tried to
> > murder the Princes they would not have given an explanation of where their
> > orders were coming from first.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard
> > Yahoo wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's damning.
> > > > > > > If Perkin was duke of York, then it would seem Richard was
> > guilty.
> > > > > > > If P was a fraud then it is another matter. How can we reconcile
> > these two things?
> > > > > > > Of course the greatest assumption has to be that Virgil was not
> > making the whole thing up........so confusing:/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 3:17 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie responds:
> > > > > > > It is the case that different words were used for paternal and
> > maternal uncle (patruus and avunculus respectively), but I've just checked
> > Ann Wroe's translation of Perkin's supposed speech to James IV as recounted
> > by Vergil, and I find that discussion of which word he used for uncle is a
> > red herring because Vergil doesn't make do with vague references to an
> > "uncle":-
> > > > > > > "For my father Edward, when he was dying, appointed as guardian
> > of his sons his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom he hoped to make
> > more attached to his sons the more he loaded him with favours. But alas, to
> > my misery, it happened otherwise than he imagined. That man was not the
> > guardian of our line but almost its extinguisher. Behold, suddenly the
> > cruel tyrant, seized with ambition to be king, ordered that my brother
> > Edward and I should be killed together." (p. 99 in my copy)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen
> > Clark wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's
> > need for
> > > > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still
> > might be
> > > > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is an interesting point, and I wonder, if it was Buckingham
> > being
> > > > > > > referred to here, why he wasn't named. While naming the uncle as
> > Richard
> > > > > > > might well have alienated his supporters, I'm wondering who
> > would have been
> > > > > > > particularly bothered by Buckingham being named.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is one of the problems with just about all the extant
> > chronicles and
> > > > > > > histories. Very few of them were both objective and fully
> > informed. We talk
> > > > > > > about 'Tudor propaganda' with regard to Vergil &c, but any
> > source that might
> > > > > > > have been 'official' (The Arrivall of Edward IV; Warwick''s
> > Manner and
> > > > > > > Guiding; various manifestoes, Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor &c)
> > are all
> > > > > > > 'tainted' by subjectivity and political purpose. The same
> > thinking that
> > > > > > > leads me to wonder why, if Buckingham was the uncle in question,
> > he wasn't
> > > > > > > named, leads me to ask: if Vergil was making things up out of
> > the whole
> > > > > > > cloth, why Richard wasn't named as the 'uncle'. That leaves open
> > the
> > > > > > > question as to just what was made up and what was (reasonably)
> > straight
> > > > > > > recording of a conversation, filtered through whatever source
> > Vergil was
> > > > > > > working from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > > > Reply-To:
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:19:34 -0600
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Introduction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > //snip//
> > > > > > > "So it is of paramount importance for me both to avoid drawing
> > conclusions
> > > > > > > yet about Perkin's identifity and to disentangle the extant
> > letter to
> > > > > > > Ferdinand and Isabella from Vergil's claim about what Perkin
> > said to James
> > > > > > > of Scotland."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > > > So, there's an actual letter from Perkin/Richard to Ferdinand
> > and Isabella
> > > > > > > and then there's what Vergil SAID Perkin/Richard said to James
> > of Scotland?
> > > > > > > Good grief, no wonder I keep getting confused! I'll have to keep
> > it in mind
> > > > > > > that it WASN'T a letter to James, but rather a conversation -
> > written down
> > > > > > > by someone who wasn't present!
> > > > > > > Can you recommend any particular book that might include a copy
> > of the
> > > > > > > letter to F&I? I presume Perkin/Richard's "conversation" with
> > James can be
> > > > > > > found in any version of Vergil's "History"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The distinction needs to be made, and Perkin's failure to name
> > Richard as
> > > > > > > behind the murder of Edward V makes sense whether he was Richard
> > Duke of
> > > > > > > York or whether he wasn't because whoever he was he needed the
> > widest
> > > > > > > possible support in England, ie he needed to appeal to all Henry
> > VII's
> > > > > > > enemies, including those who had been supporters of Richard III."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is the point I was trying to make - that Perkin/Richard's
> > need for
> > > > > > > support would take precedence over naming names, but there still
> > might be
> > > > > > > something to be gained from the form of "uncle" used. Oh, well...
> > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>