RE Aurelius Conanus

Hello Marie!

You wrote: ...my gut reaction is that nobody
genuinely changes sides so completely and so quickly.

***

So are we agreeing that Buckingham was a Lancastrian
supporter all along, and that his seeming support for
Richard was an act?

***

You wrote: Hughes explains that people really did see
bad harvests, pestilence etc. as being due to a
problem with the king.

***

Doesn't this relate to the Fisher King in the story of
the Grail? A wounded king causes his kingdom to
become a wasteland?

***

You wrote: ...the alternative explanation is that
history does repeat itself in these strange patterns
and that Richard was doomed to fill this particular
role.

***

I didn't mean to suggest that Richard was doomed to
fill a particular role. I don't want to accept that
explanation. I prefer to believe that people have at
least some freedom to shape their lives.

I'm not sure about patterns in history. I don't know
enough history well enough to recognize patterns over
thousands of years. It's possible, but I can't say
whether or not I believe it.

I'm still trying to understand how Richard's
contemporaries thought. That's why I asked whether
Fabyan might have been echoing Geoffrey of Monmouth.
I thought I heard echoes, but that doesn't mean Fabyan
did.

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
>
> ***
>
> You worte: So are we agreeing that Buckingham was a Lancastrian
> supporter all along, and that his seeming support for
> Richard was an act?

That his seeming support for Richard was an act, I'd say it must have
been. I'm not sure what the term 'Lancastrian' really meant by 1483.
Clearly he was not pro-Edward V. Nor propbably pro-Richard. But was
he aiming to put a Lancastrian back on the throne (ie Tudor) or put
himself on the throne, using his descent from Thomas of Woodstock
(which not strictly speaking a Lancastrian claim since these went
back to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster). He may, in other words,
have been a Buckinghamist, but at present I'm not sure.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: Hughes explains that people really did see
> bad harvests, pestilence etc. as being due to a
> problem with the king.
>
> ***
>
> Doesn't this relate to the Fisher King in the story of
> the Grail? A wounded king causes his kingdom to
> become a wasteland?

Yes, indeed. Since people were thinking in Arthurian terms, this is
exactly relevant. Hughes argues that this would have been the image
of England during Henry VI's reign, and perhaps even during Edward
IV's reign when he wasn't cutting the mustard. It's actually a very
ancient and widespread idea, but I hadn't realised it had persisted
like this in Christian medieval England. It was certainly very strong
in Celtic cultures.
>
> ***
>
> You wrote: ...the alternative explanation is that
> history does repeat itself in these strange patterns
> and that Richard was doomed to fill this particular
> role.
>
> ***
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that Richard was doomed to
> fill a particular role. I don't want to accept that
> explanation. I prefer to believe that people have at
> least some freedom to shape their lives.
>
> I'm not sure about patterns in history. I don't know
> enough history well enough to recognize patterns over
> thousands of years. It's possible, but I can't say
> whether or not I believe it.
>
> I'm still trying to understand how Richard's
> contemporaries thought. That's why I asked whether
> Fabyan might have been echoing Geoffrey of Monmouth.
> I thought I heard echoes, but that doesn't mean Fabyan
> did.
>


Actually, I think it may have been someone else who gave the quotes?
I must admit at one point I was starting to wonder myself if myths &
legends might actaully have some life of their own, some of the
mythic parallels in this era are so extraordinary. But it makes much
more sense if these were actually being contrived.

You would think, wouldn't you, that with such stories current Henry
VII could have made great capital out of naming Richard as a second
AC or Godrich? Just as he could have made great capital out of
accusing Richard straightforwardly of murdering the princes rather
than just allowing people to think it. There must have been some
reason why he didn't.

Marie




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com