Why Richard lost his throne
Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 10:33:10
Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
From "The Winter King"......
"Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
From "The Winter King"......
"Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 11:14:03
Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
Mary
Loyaulte me lie
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mary
Loyaulte me lie
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 11:21:50
Thank you from me too Paul.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
Mary
Loyaulte me lie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
Mary
Loyaulte me lie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 12:35:02
Paul: A great post. I so enjoy reading your comments. Your knowledge has really helped me get a clearer picture of Richard. Maire.
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Thank you from me too Paul.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
> Â
>
> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
>
> Mary
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >
> > From "The Winter King"......
> >
> > "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> > Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> > Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >
> > I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> > It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Thank you from me too Paul.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
> Â
>
> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
>
> Mary
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >
> > From "The Winter King"......
> >
> > "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> > Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> > Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >
> > I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> > It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 13:41:46
Thank you so much for your kind comments.
And those others who have said similar things.
I am most grateful.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 12:35, mairemulholland wrote:
> Paul: A great post. I so enjoy reading your comments. Your knowledge has really helped me get a clearer picture of Richard. Maire.
> --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>>
>> Thank you from me too Paul.
>> Loyaulte me Lie
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: ricard1an
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>>>
>>> From "The Winter King"......
>>>
>>> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
>>> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
>>> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>>>
>>> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
>>> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
And those others who have said similar things.
I am most grateful.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 12:35, mairemulholland wrote:
> Paul: A great post. I so enjoy reading your comments. Your knowledge has really helped me get a clearer picture of Richard. Maire.
> --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>>
>> Thank you from me too Paul.
>> Loyaulte me Lie
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: ricard1an
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>>>
>>> From "The Winter King"......
>>>
>>> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
>>> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
>>> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>>>
>>> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
>>> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 13:48:53
Paul...maybe you should get yourself regressed...you may have known Richard in a former life. I seriously think this is why some people are so drawn to this man who lived and died 500 years ago.
I have been regressed myself..sadly no link to Richard. I was a young Roman man, a Viking woman and a young girl living on a farm in Suffolk in the 19th c. Eileen
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:41, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Thank you so much for your kind comments.
> And those others who have said similar things.
> I am most grateful.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 12:35, mairemulholland wrote:
>
> > Paul: A great post. I so enjoy reading your comments. Your knowledge has really helped me get a clearer picture of Richard. Maire.
> > --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you from me too Paul.
> >> Loyaulte me Lie
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: ricard1an
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
> >> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >>
> >>
> >> ý
> >>
> >> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >>>
> >>> From "The Winter King"......
> >>>
> >>> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> >>> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> >>> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >>>
> >>> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> >>> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
I have been regressed myself..sadly no link to Richard. I was a young Roman man, a Viking woman and a young girl living on a farm in Suffolk in the 19th c. Eileen
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:41, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Thank you so much for your kind comments.
> And those others who have said similar things.
> I am most grateful.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 12:35, mairemulholland wrote:
>
> > Paul: A great post. I so enjoy reading your comments. Your knowledge has really helped me get a clearer picture of Richard. Maire.
> > --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you from me too Paul.
> >> Loyaulte me Lie
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: ricard1an
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 11:14
> >> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >>
> >>
> >> ý
> >>
> >> Thank you Paul for this very thoughtful post. It is also some how very comforting because at least we know that Richard was not an evil tyrant like the Tudors.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >>>
> >>> From "The Winter King"......
> >>>
> >>> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> >>> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> >>> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >>>
> >>> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> >>> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 15:23:53
Tudor tyranny continued into the Stuart period and, as we know, people in the shape of parliament became profoundly fed up with the corruption and violence (not unknown these days.) Charles I lost his head as a result.
Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at Bosworth. How far Richard's treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any people loved this Scrooge like King.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at Bosworth. How far Richard's treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any people loved this Scrooge like King.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
>
> From "The Winter King"......
>
> "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
>
> I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 15:44:40
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 16:17:25
Paul,
Look at the "members" list on the forum - you will find it informative.
Stephen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Look at the "members" list on the forum - you will find it informative.
Stephen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 16:55:41
Thank you Paul, I hoped you would set the record straight .... AGAIN
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
> > It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
> > It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 18:38:37
Hi Paul totally agree,
I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 19:10:34
It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Hi Paul totally agree,
I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
----- Original Message -----
From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Hi Paul totally agree,
I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
Time to stop slandering him.
As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 20:11:45
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
Carol responds:
I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
Carol
>
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
Carol responds:
I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
Carol
Membership to the forum
2013-01-19 20:36:37
To all:
perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
Regards,
Neil
Forum Moderator
On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
>
> Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
>
> Carol
>
>
perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
Regards,
Neil
Forum Moderator
On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
>
> Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-19 23:14:50
Vermeer2, what are your sources about such unequivocal "Richard wanted to marry E of Y"?
Violence in battle has nothing to do with using violence to run a country.
Paul says it all.
Ishita
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> Tudor tyranny continued into the Stuart period and, as we know, people in the shape of parliament became profoundly fed up with the corruption and violence (not unknown these days.) Charles I lost his head as a result.
>
> Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at Bosworth. How far Richard's treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any people loved this Scrooge like King.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >
> > From "The Winter King"......
> >
> > "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> > Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> > Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >
> > I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> > It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Violence in battle has nothing to do with using violence to run a country.
Paul says it all.
Ishita
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> Tudor tyranny continued into the Stuart period and, as we know, people in the shape of parliament became profoundly fed up with the corruption and violence (not unknown these days.) Charles I lost his head as a result.
>
> Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at Bosworth. How far Richard's treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any people loved this Scrooge like King.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Judy posted a few weeks ago about Machiavelli.
> >
> > From "The Winter King"......
> >
> > "Towards the latter stages of his reign Henry VII had effected a kind of terror to settle on the royal household.
> > Only a few years later Machiavelli described it best. Discussing the knotty question of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, he wrote that, in an ideal world, one would like to be both one and the other. But, he continued, the world was not ideal. It was difficult to inspire both qualities, so if one had to choose one, it would be fear. The problem with love was that it was sustained by a 'chain of obligation', of service, which,'because men are a wretched lot, is broken on every occasion for their own self interest. Fear, though, was different. It was sustained by a constant dread of punishment, by a sense of the prince's al encompassing power.
> > Fear, Machiavelli concluded, worked better because 'men love their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince'. The wise prince should build his foundation on what belongs to him, not on what belongs to others. Faced with profound instability, that is precisely what Henry VII had done. Looking into the void of dynastic uncertainty, he was perfecting a system, idiosyncratic and terrifying, that would allow him unprecedented control over his subjects. It was designed to allow him to keep his subjects in danger at his pleasure."
> >
> > I find it interesting to see Machiavelli describe both the way Richard tried to rule, by love, by a chain of obligation and service, and the reasons he failed. It also describes exactly why the Tudors succeeded, creating a monarchy that was built on fear, and retribution if not obeyed. No longer was the monarch first amongst equals, no longer did Richard's policy of forgiveness, reconciliation and collaboration even enter the frame. Nobody was allowed to exhibit or act upon self interest. You either did what you were told or you were got rid of.
> > It just accentuates the power of the Tudor propaganda that it is Richard's name that is dragged through the mud, and Tudor's that is lauded.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Membership to the forum
2013-01-20 00:08:54
Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Membership to the forum
2013-01-20 00:51:45
I agree with you, Ishita.
Jacq
To:
From: bandyoi@...
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:08:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump neil.trump@...> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Jacq
To:
From: bandyoi@...
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:08:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump neil.trump@...> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 06:18:23
"Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
people loved this Scrooge like King."
Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
people loved this Scrooge like King."
Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
Re: Membership to the forum
2013-01-20 09:32:00
Hello Neil,I think we can all do without the windup people ,the two metioned by Carol have been some trouble recently.
I don't like excluding people but some seem to be on the forum to create trouble.
Regards
Christine Holmes
________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 20:36
Subject: Membership to the forum
To all:
perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
Regards,
Neil
Forum Moderator
On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
>
> Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
>
> Carol
>
>
I don't like excluding people but some seem to be on the forum to create trouble.
Regards
Christine Holmes
________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 20:36
Subject: Membership to the forum
To all:
perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
Regards,
Neil
Forum Moderator
On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
>
> Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 10:07:05
In other words, ignore...!
Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> Hi Paul totally agree,
> I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
>> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> Hi Paul totally agree,
> I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
>> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 10:48:48
Sorry, we KNOW this to be nonsense. Anne's illness ended on 16 March and Brompton was in Portugal on 22 March, negotiating a new wife for Richard and a husband for Elizabeth.
The individual in question has misleadingly trolled like this before, on several occasions.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
"Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
people loved this Scrooge like King."
Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
The individual in question has misleadingly trolled like this before, on several occasions.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
"Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
people loved this Scrooge like King."
Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 10:50:40
.......... or recognise the individual and blow them out of the water.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
In other words, ignore...!
Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> Hi Paul totally agree,
> I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
>> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
In other words, ignore...!
Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
Paul
On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> Hi Paul totally agree,
> I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
>
>> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
>
> Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> Time to stop slandering him.
> As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 14:32:33
Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 15:10:52
Just wanted to let folks now that in today's New York Times Book Review section, there is a review of Peter Ackroyd's new book about English kings. And the first paragraph? Dedicated to the Leicester find. He's everywhere these days! Maire.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> .......... or recognise the individual and blow them out of the water.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> In other words, ignore...!
> Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> >
> > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > Time to stop slandering him.
> > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> .......... or recognise the individual and blow them out of the water.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> In other words, ignore...!
> Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> >
> > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > Time to stop slandering him.
> > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 15:11:26
It has become increasingly apparent that Buck misread that letter - which was about Elizabeth and Manoel. Your other statement should be revised that her father 'married' her mother.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 15:17:14
Again, I wonder how happy poor Richard was being King. Imagine, your son has died, your wife has JUST died and already you are being put out to stud.
I wonder once he saw the dour portrait of Joana of Portugal if he didn't call for a large glass of wine! Would he have had to remarry if Edward hadn't died? Maire.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Sorry, we KNOW this to be nonsense. Anne's illness ended on 16 March and Brompton was in Portugal on 22 March, negotiating a new wife for Richard and a husband for Elizabeth.
> The individual in question has misleadingly trolled like this before, on several occasions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: P BARRETT
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> "Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
> to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
> of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
> Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
> death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
> marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
> his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
> through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
> people loved this Scrooge like King."
>
> Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
> EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
>
> We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I wonder once he saw the dour portrait of Joana of Portugal if he didn't call for a large glass of wine! Would he have had to remarry if Edward hadn't died? Maire.
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Sorry, we KNOW this to be nonsense. Anne's illness ended on 16 March and Brompton was in Portugal on 22 March, negotiating a new wife for Richard and a husband for Elizabeth.
> The individual in question has misleadingly trolled like this before, on several occasions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: P BARRETT
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
>
> "Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
> to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
> of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
> Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
> death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
> marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
> his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
> through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
> people loved this Scrooge like King."
>
> Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
> EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
>
> We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 15:21:04
What do you think exactly Richard would have gained from marrying his niece?....a bastard daughter of his brother...the loss of his Northern supporters who he had gained through his marriage to the Kingmaker's daughter as well as a strong distaste felt by many to such a marriage. Not so much a win win situation as a lose lose....
If EofY every did actually have a crush on her uncle?...well so what?..it would not exactly amount to much..a storm in a teacup...totally blown out of proportion by those seeking to throw another fine piece of mud at Richard.
Eileen
On 20 Jan 2013, at 14:32, P BARRETT wrote:
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
>
>
>
If EofY every did actually have a crush on her uncle?...well so what?..it would not exactly amount to much..a storm in a teacup...totally blown out of proportion by those seeking to throw another fine piece of mud at Richard.
Eileen
On 20 Jan 2013, at 14:32, P BARRETT wrote:
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 16:11:02
I have no problem with the rest of the content in the post. Just the bit about Richard marrying his niece. Richard was not a saint, of course. He couldn't have been , being born a prince in a violent time!
He wouldn't even he interesting if he was someone like H4! We are intrigued by the contradictions and are here to try to puzzle out the man out of myth.......
And why isn't vermeer2 here to defend himself? That in itself is strange.....
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:18 AM, P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
> "Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
> to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
> of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
> Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
> death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
> marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
> his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
> through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
> people loved this Scrooge like King."
>
> Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
> EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
>
> We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
>
>
>
>
He wouldn't even he interesting if he was someone like H4! We are intrigued by the contradictions and are here to try to puzzle out the man out of myth.......
And why isn't vermeer2 here to defend himself? That in itself is strange.....
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:18 AM, P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
> "Richard III did try to win `love' through justice, but he wasn't averse
> to violence as Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Hastings found out and Richard
> of course used violence at Barnet, Tewkesbury, against the Scots and at
> Bosworth. How far Richard' s treatment of Edward V alienated supporters we can't precisely say. It may be that Henry VII succeeded up to his
> death, because many people felt a traditional loyalty to the older line: Elizabeth of York. It seems that even Richard III had considered
> marriage to her: his niece. Henry VII used fear and finance to secure
> his position, but his heritage included illegitimacy and insanity
> through the Valois line and it's difficult to imagine that many or any
> people loved this Scrooge like King."
>
> Is this really anti-Richard ? I see it as a reasonably balanced statement. It was a violent age, a gentle forgiving King (which Richard too often was) could not last long. Hastings execution may well have been a mistake made in anger.
> EW and E of Y could certainly have thought a marriage to the King an excellent idea - very ambitious ladies, both of them, and Richard would have been very attractive to a girl just out of boring sanctuary and somewhat over the usual age for marriage. And we do know that rumours of the boys' murder were circulated in London at the time. Rumours don't have to be true to be believed, many have been brought down by lies.
>
> We do Richard no favours by denying that he had his faults and made some errors of judgment.
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 16:19:09
Eileen, you are right. Lose lose it is. Even after 600 years we are debating the issue with the same abhorrence to the idea! Imagine what a horrible scandal it must have caused then and what a damage it ended up doing to his reputation. If it was a rumor spread by the Tudors , it was a great one.
And popular writers like PG is just perpetuating this rumor...... !!!
Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 10:20 AM, eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> What do you think exactly Richard would have gained from marrying his niece?....a bastard daughter of his brother...the loss of his Northern supporters who he had gained through his marriage to the Kingmaker's daughter as well as a strong distaste felt by many to such a marriage. Not so much a win win situation as a lose lose....
>
> If EofY every did actually have a crush on her uncle?...well so what?..it would not exactly amount to much..a storm in a teacup...totally blown out of proportion by those seeking to throw another fine piece of mud at Richard.
>
> Eileen
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 14:32, P BARRETT wrote:
>
>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
And popular writers like PG is just perpetuating this rumor...... !!!
Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 10:20 AM, eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> What do you think exactly Richard would have gained from marrying his niece?....a bastard daughter of his brother...the loss of his Northern supporters who he had gained through his marriage to the Kingmaker's daughter as well as a strong distaste felt by many to such a marriage. Not so much a win win situation as a lose lose....
>
> If EofY every did actually have a crush on her uncle?...well so what?..it would not exactly amount to much..a storm in a teacup...totally blown out of proportion by those seeking to throw another fine piece of mud at Richard.
>
> Eileen
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 14:32, P BARRETT wrote:
>
>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 16:25:08
Do we not have a moderator to rectify this situation to a he says she says contest
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> In other words, ignore...!
> Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> >
> > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > Time to stop slandering him.
> > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> In other words, ignore...!
> Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> >
> >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> >
> > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > Time to stop slandering him.
> > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 16:57:33
Yes George there is a moderator..Neil Trump...he posted a message yesterday re membership. ...Eileen
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Do we not have a moderator to rectify this situation to a he says she says contest
> George
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> > In other words, ignore...!
> > Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: C HOLMES
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> > >
> > >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> > >
> > > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > > Time to stop slandering him.
> > > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Do we not have a moderator to rectify this situation to a he says she says contest
> George
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> > In other words, ignore...!
> > Though of course the posts can get out there, and if not challenged and corrected, some might take what they say as being truth.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: C HOLMES
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Paul totally agree,
> > > I wonder is HI another trying to wind us up.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013, 15:44
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19 Jan 2013, at 15:23, HI wrote:
> > >
> > >> It seems that even Richard III had considered marriage to her: his niece.
> > >
> > > Once again one has to publicly deny this shocking and clearly ridiculous rumour spread just after the King had lost his son and wife.
> > > What they didn't know was that he had already started negotiations with Portugal for marriages for him and his neice.
> > > Time to stop slandering him.
> > > As for violence in battle, I find that a somewhat silly thing to say as it is of course impossible not to be violent in war.
> > > Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey plotted against Richard who between the death of his brother and the next coronation WAS THE LAW so they were committing high treason. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. The Constable was second only to the king. Go for him and fail, goodbye head!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Membership to the forum
2013-01-20 17:25:07
Totally agree. I have to say though that I will be automatically suspicious of anyone who seems to deliberately use more than one identity on a forum .
Liz
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 0:08
Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Liz
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 0:08
Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> To all:
>
> perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
>
> If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Forum Moderator
>
> On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> >
> > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 17:39:12
Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
Liz
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
Liz
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
Re: Membership to the forum
2013-01-20 17:41:39
Yes.....why would you want to do that?.....It's rather sad really...the trouble some people will take...Need to get out more...which is what I would do if I was not snowed in.....Duh...:0)
Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Totally agree. I have to say though that I will be automatically suspicious of anyone who seems to deliberately use more than one identity on a forum .
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
>
> Â
> Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > To all:
> >
> > perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
> >
> > If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > Forum Moderator
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> > >
> > > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Totally agree. I have to say though that I will be automatically suspicious of anyone who seems to deliberately use more than one identity on a forum .
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 0:08
> Subject: Re: Membership to the forum
>
> Â
> Neil, I don't think we can or should block people whose opinions do not correspond with each other! It is fun to engage in debate. But if there are trolls and trouble mongers who just likes to muddy water out of maliciousness then they should be rooted out. Not honest, interesting people with differing viewpoints! That's my humble opinion:)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Neil Trump mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > To all:
> >
> > perhaps it might be a good time to make you all more inclusive as to who you would like see as members that add value to the forum in a good positive or even negative light that creates good debate.
> >
> > If you collectively feel that some members are deliberately causing provocative comments that are unfounded then lets debate the issue quickly and in a business fashion and let me know your decision which I will support and take the necessary action.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > Forum Moderator
> >
> > On 19 Jan 2013, at 20:11, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It appears that "hi dung" and "vermeer two" are the same person - they share the same membership - and both post anti-Ricardian rubbish.
> > > > I would advise reading his/ her posts on the basis of this information.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I can't find vermeer two listed among the members, but some posts do show both names. Hi.dung is still here and appears to be, I'm sorry to say, a sixty-four-year-old man who should know better than to troll. However, this last post isn't terrible. It merely labels battles that Richard had no choice but to fight in (Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth), along with three justified executions (for which we have evidence of a trial) as "violence" (compare any other medieval or Renaissance king or noble and you'll find a similar record--it was unavoidable), and wrongly repeats the false charge that he intended to marry his niece, for which we can blame the Croyland Chronicler.
> > >
> > > Dung/vermeer, if you're reading this, you're behind on your information. He was actually negotiating to marry Joanna of Portugal.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 17:44:27
Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 18:12:47
Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: P BARRETT
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> > Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: P BARRETT
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >
> >
> > Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 18:25:08
Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: P BARRETT
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > > Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > > Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: P BARRETT
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > > Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >
> > >
> > > Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 18:57:24
Yes. That's the thing. It maligned Richard , whatever E of Y's feelings might have been.
Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
>> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> www.ishitabandyo.com
>> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: P BARRETT
>>>> To: ""
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
>>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
>> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo
>> www.ishitabandyo.com
>> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: P BARRETT
>>>> To: ""
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
>>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 18:57:51
P BARRETT wrote:
>
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
Carol responds:
The point is that, whatever Elizabeth of York's hopes in the matter, her uncle the king had no intention of marrying *her* (which would have required him to legitimize her, thereby destroying his own claim). We have proof of the negotiations and of his own denial of the truth of the rumors. It's only the bitter and evidently misinformed Croyland Chronicler who claims that Richard actually intended to marry her and had to be dissuaded by two of his supporters. The whole story, intended to damage Richard's reputation, actually damages the Chronicler's credibility.
Richard was no fool, and only a fool would have even considered marrying a niece who had been declared illegitimate in the document that formalized his claim to the throne. (Imagine *Richard* ordering all copies of the Titulus Regius to be burned unread!)
Carol
>
> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
>
Carol responds:
The point is that, whatever Elizabeth of York's hopes in the matter, her uncle the king had no intention of marrying *her* (which would have required him to legitimize her, thereby destroying his own claim). We have proof of the negotiations and of his own denial of the truth of the rumors. It's only the bitter and evidently misinformed Croyland Chronicler who claims that Richard actually intended to marry her and had to be dissuaded by two of his supporters. The whole story, intended to damage Richard's reputation, actually damages the Chronicler's credibility.
Richard was no fool, and only a fool would have even considered marrying a niece who had been declared illegitimate in the document that formalized his claim to the throne. (Imagine *Richard* ordering all copies of the Titulus Regius to be burned unread!)
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 19:11:20
Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
>
> Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
>
> > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> >>
> >> Ishita Bandyo
> >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> >>>
> >>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: P BARRETT
> >>>> To: ""
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
--- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
>
>
> Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
>
> > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> >>
> >> Ishita Bandyo
> >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> >>>
> >>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: P BARRETT
> >>>> To: ""
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 19:15:48
Oooooooops..."while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery" should of course read 'no hope of recovery'.....slapped wrist for me....Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
>
> Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > >>
> > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > >>>> To: ""
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
>
> Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > >>
> > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > >>>> To: ""
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 19:25:46
Hi All. I agree Eileen and Richard would have been under pressure from his Council and Parliament to marry again.
Kings are not supposed to have feelings, poor devil's.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:15
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Oooooooops..."while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery" should of course read 'no hope of recovery'.....slapped wrist for me....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
>
> Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > >>
> > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > >>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Kings are not supposed to have feelings, poor devil's.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:15
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Oooooooops..."while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery" should of course read 'no hope of recovery'.....slapped wrist for me....Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
>
> Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > >>
> > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > >>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 19:37:39
Yes...A king's personal choice is very secondary to the good of the realm. Look what happened when King Edward chose his own wives (let us not forget the first one)....civil war, thousands of deaths not to mention the death of his own dynasty. His selfishness was the beginning of the end for his brother and probably answers the question that is the subject of this topic....and for his two sons..well what became of them we do not know but I somehow doubt it was good. Eileen
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi All. I agree Eileen and Richard would have been under pressure from his Council and Parliament to marry again.
> Kings are not supposed to have feelings, poor devil's.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:15
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
> Â
>
> Oooooooops..."while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery" should of course read 'no hope of recovery'.....slapped wrist for me....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
> >
> > Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > > >>
> > > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > > >>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi All. I agree Eileen and Richard would have been under pressure from his Council and Parliament to marry again.
> Kings are not supposed to have feelings, poor devil's.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:15
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
>
> Â
>
> Oooooooops..."while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery" should of course read 'no hope of recovery'.....slapped wrist for me....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ishita...now I said exactly the same thing on here...that it seemed very cold that before Anne was in her grave Richard's second marriage was being discussed. Marie posted a reply that was moving and made perfect sense. I then understood how this situation could have come about while Anne was lying gravely ill with no hope of discovery. It did not mean that Richard did not care...but he was a king without an heir which put him in a dire situation and it was expedient that when the Queen died he should marry and hopefully have children. Rather than cold it must have been painful for Richard.....but a necessity. With the death of Edward of Middleham so recent he must have felt like he had been poleaxed...
> >
> > Its a shame Marie's message was posted so long ago as it would probably be impossible to find now. But take heart Ishita...these marriage negotiations no way mean that Richard was uncaring and heartless just that he was in a position where his personal feelings were not of the greatest importance...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why was R negotiating a marriage even before Anne was dead? Maybe that's what made him look heartless and uncaring to people?
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:25 PM, eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well possibly Ishita...I suppose it depends on the individual. However..as Liz pointed out...the problem lies really in that it has been made out..and in a bad way as to malign him...that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth...which is a very big difference not to mention poison his wife into the bargain. The shame of it is that he didnt marry Elizabeth ...but to someone else and fast. Again...probably too kind for his own good. Of course even this would not have mattered in the end as Elizabeth had several sisters....Eileen
> > > > On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:12, Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well, if she did have a crush on Richard, she would have told her sisters and the thing could have got out! If you have a crush on someone you do tend to talk about them a lot..... I had a crush on my kindly eye surgeon when I was 17 ( he was about 40, me thinks) and poor man was pursued relentlessly by a determined teenager. It was pretty harmless though. got over it in a month or so....Lol!!! But everyone knew because I wouldn't shut up!< Shudder>
> > > >>
> > > >> Ishita Bandyo
> > > >> www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > >> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > >> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Totally agree....another thing....most teenage girls would keep the fact they had a 'crush' on someone, especially if it were an uncle very much secret....But No...not in this case...in this case the whole bloody world knew what was going on in this young girl's head. Amazing...Those Woodville's...the medieval version of the Trotters :0).Eileen
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Of course it doesn't but that's a completely different thing to Richard planning to marry her.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: P BARRETT
> > > >>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 14:32
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Negotiations for a Portuguese marriages doesn't prevent E of Y having had a crush on her handsome (and kingly) uncle. After all, her father married her mother while Warwick was arranging a French marriage for him..
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 19:55:15
Ishita wrote:
>
> Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Carol responds:
The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
Maybe someone else has additional information.
BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
Carol
>
> Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Carol responds:
The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
Maybe someone else has additional information.
BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 20:25:54
Thanks for the info Carol!
Yes, H6 for certain:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 20, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
Yes, H6 for certain:)
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 20, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 20:44:26
I agree, Richard would have gained nothing, and lost a lot of support by raising the Woodvilles to some power again, among other considerations. But that would not have stopped E of Y fantasising about the idea - perhaps encouraged by mamma..
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 20:47:52
But I thought that EofY's mamma was conniving with HT's mamma for a marriage between their respective offspring...?
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> I agree, Richard would have gained nothing, and lost a lot of support by raising the Woodvilles to some power again, among other considerations. But that would not have stopped E of Y fantasising about the idea - perhaps encouraged by mamma..
>
>
>
Eileen
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
>
> I agree, Richard would have gained nothing, and lost a lot of support by raising the Woodvilles to some power again, among other considerations. But that would not have stopped E of Y fantasising about the idea - perhaps encouraged by mamma..
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 20:55:19
I Agree Carol, I have read Buck's book and I feel he got the wrong interpretation of it, as you say he did not know of the negotiations for Richard's marriage and Richard's negotiation for Elizabeth's marriage. Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to ) to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Ishita wrote:
>
> Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Carol responds:
The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
Maybe someone else has additional information.
BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
Carol
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Ishita wrote:
>
> Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
Carol responds:
The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
Maybe someone else has additional information.
BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 21:05:29
That is very possible..I have also wondered if the letter did in fact exist but was a fake...but then again why? Eileen
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 21:41:31
P BARRETT wrote:
>
> I agree, Richard would have gained nothing, and lost a lot of support by raising the Woodvilles to some power again, among other considerations. But that would not have stopped E of Y fantasising about the idea - perhaps encouraged by mamma..
>
Carol responds:
I think you may be replying to my post, but I'm not sure. It would help if you'd quote from the post you're responding to and identify the writer. Unfortunately, posts in this forum don't thread very well.
Thanks,
Carol
>
> I agree, Richard would have gained nothing, and lost a lot of support by raising the Woodvilles to some power again, among other considerations. But that would not have stopped E of Y fantasising about the idea - perhaps encouraged by mamma..
>
Carol responds:
I think you may be replying to my post, but I'm not sure. It would help if you'd quote from the post you're responding to and identify the writer. Unfortunately, posts in this forum don't thread very well.
Thanks,
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-20 22:54:59
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> I Agree Carol, I have read Buck's book and I feel he got the wrong interpretation of it, as you say he did not know of the negotiations for Richard's marriage and Richard's negotiation for Elizabeth's marriage. Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
Carol responds:
I'm not so sure about the last part. Richard had promised to find her and her sisters good husbands (meaning loyal supporters of good birth) and had already given her sister Cecily in marriage to Ralph Scrope (Henry VII had the marriage annulled and instead had her marry one of *his* supporters, Viscount Welles--how Cecily felt about the matter is not recorded). The last person that Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is Henry Tudor. She had no fear of that happening while he was king. After Bosworth, Henry could marry her if and when he pleased--and did so after a delay of five months so that no one would think he was claiming the crown through her. (Again, *her* feelings are not recorded.)
Regarding the Portuguese marriage negotiations, Elizabeth's status would have been raised considerably, from royal bastard to duchess and, eventually, though no one could have predicted it at the time, queen of Portugal. The Wikipedia article on Manuel doesn't mention his dukedom (Beja) or the proposed marriage to Elizabeth, but it does provide a portrait of Manuel in later life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_of_Portugal
Carol
>
> I Agree Carol, I have read Buck's book and I feel he got the wrong interpretation of it, as you say he did not know of the negotiations for Richard's marriage and Richard's negotiation for Elizabeth's marriage. Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
Carol responds:
I'm not so sure about the last part. Richard had promised to find her and her sisters good husbands (meaning loyal supporters of good birth) and had already given her sister Cecily in marriage to Ralph Scrope (Henry VII had the marriage annulled and instead had her marry one of *his* supporters, Viscount Welles--how Cecily felt about the matter is not recorded). The last person that Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is Henry Tudor. She had no fear of that happening while he was king. After Bosworth, Henry could marry her if and when he pleased--and did so after a delay of five months so that no one would think he was claiming the crown through her. (Again, *her* feelings are not recorded.)
Regarding the Portuguese marriage negotiations, Elizabeth's status would have been raised considerably, from royal bastard to duchess and, eventually, though no one could have predicted it at the time, queen of Portugal. The Wikipedia article on Manuel doesn't mention his dukedom (Beja) or the proposed marriage to Elizabeth, but it does provide a portrait of Manuel in later life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_of_Portugal
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-21 05:23:38
"But I thought that EofY's mamma was conniving with HT's mamma for a marriage between their respective offspring... ?
Eileen"
Any King would do! Restore the family fortunes in whatever way presents itself
Eileen"
Any King would do! Restore the family fortunes in whatever way presents itself
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-21 09:11:08
Hi Eileen, Buck family was protected by Thomas Howard I believe, so he may have had access to written info and also verbal information, but who knows, as usual it's what if''s.
Christine
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 21:05
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
That is very possible..I have also wondered if the letter did in fact exist but was a fake...but then again why? Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
Christine
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 21:05
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
That is very possible..I have also wondered if the letter did in fact exist but was a fake...but then again why? Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 19:55
> Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
>
> Â
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
>
> BTW, Ishita, in another post you referred to "H4" as saintly. I think you meant Henry VI. Henry IV was the usurper who deposed and killed his cousin Richard II and started the Lancastrian line, setting aside Richard II's Mortimer heirs. Had it not been for him, there would have been no Wars of the Roses.
>
> Carol
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-21 09:15:44
Hi Carol I'm not sure what you mean re The last person Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is henry Tudor, I did not suggest this at all, have you missread my meaning.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 22:54
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> I Agree Carol, I have read Buck's book and I feel he got the wrong interpretation of it, as you say he did not know of the negotiations for Richard's marriage and Richard's negotiation for Elizabeth's marriage. Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
Carol responds:
I'm not so sure about the last part. Richard had promised to find her and her sisters good husbands (meaning loyal supporters of good birth) and had already given her sister Cecily in marriage to Ralph Scrope (Henry VII had the marriage annulled and instead had her marry one of *his* supporters, Viscount Welles--how Cecily felt about the matter is not recorded). The last person that Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is Henry Tudor. She had no fear of that happening while he was king. After Bosworth, Henry could marry her if and when he pleased--and did so after a delay of five months so that no one would think he was claiming the crown through her. (Again, *her* feelings are not recorded.)
Regarding the Portuguese marriage negotiations, Elizabeth's status would have been raised considerably, from royal bastard to duchess and, eventually, though no one could have predicted it at the time, queen of Portugal. The Wikipedia article on Manuel doesn't mention his dukedom (Beja) or the proposed marriage to Elizabeth, but it does provide a portrait of Manuel in later life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_of_Portugal
Carol
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 22:54
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> I Agree Carol, I have read Buck's book and I feel he got the wrong interpretation of it, as you say he did not know of the negotiations for Richard's marriage and Richard's negotiation for Elizabeth's marriage. Maybe Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Tudor and was asking John Howard ( who the letter was written to )Â to get Richard to hurry the negotiations.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
Carol responds:
I'm not so sure about the last part. Richard had promised to find her and her sisters good husbands (meaning loyal supporters of good birth) and had already given her sister Cecily in marriage to Ralph Scrope (Henry VII had the marriage annulled and instead had her marry one of *his* supporters, Viscount Welles--how Cecily felt about the matter is not recorded). The last person that Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is Henry Tudor. She had no fear of that happening while he was king. After Bosworth, Henry could marry her if and when he pleased--and did so after a delay of five months so that no one would think he was claiming the crown through her. (Again, *her* feelings are not recorded.)
Regarding the Portuguese marriage negotiations, Elizabeth's status would have been raised considerably, from royal bastard to duchess and, eventually, though no one could have predicted it at the time, queen of Portugal. The Wikipedia article on Manuel doesn't mention his dukedom (Beja) or the proposed marriage to Elizabeth, but it does provide a portrait of Manuel in later life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_of_Portugal
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-21 16:48:33
Hi, Ishita,
In Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter entirely differently from Buck, and she makes much more sense of it than Buck. If I remember correctly, Annette postulates that Elizabeth is asking one of Richard's counselors to urge him to stop negotiating a marriage for himself to some noble not of Portugal, but to focus on negotiating the marriages for himself and Elizabeth with the Portuguese. She wasn't urging Norfolk to urge Richard to marry her; she essentially wanted a double wedding and was trying to redirect her uncle's focus. He's her "only joy and maker in this world" because he's the only one who can "make" her marriage.
Annette points out that the lack of punctuation changes the meaning, depending on how one reads the letter.
Annette interprets Elizabeth's comment of, "I fear the queen will never die," as Elizabeth being friends with Anne, emotionally wrought, and essentially saying, "I'm afraid her suffering will never end; death would be kinder than the agony she's in now."
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
In Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter entirely differently from Buck, and she makes much more sense of it than Buck. If I remember correctly, Annette postulates that Elizabeth is asking one of Richard's counselors to urge him to stop negotiating a marriage for himself to some noble not of Portugal, but to focus on negotiating the marriages for himself and Elizabeth with the Portuguese. She wasn't urging Norfolk to urge Richard to marry her; she essentially wanted a double wedding and was trying to redirect her uncle's focus. He's her "only joy and maker in this world" because he's the only one who can "make" her marriage.
Annette points out that the lack of punctuation changes the meaning, depending on how one reads the letter.
Annette interprets Elizabeth's comment of, "I fear the queen will never die," as Elizabeth being friends with Anne, emotionally wrought, and essentially saying, "I'm afraid her suffering will never end; death would be kinder than the agony she's in now."
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-22 11:15:08
Hi Wednesday, I believe you have it right, this is how I would interpret it, having read Buck's book, it makes alot of sense the way Annette explains it.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Hi, Ishita,
In Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter entirely differently from Buck, and she makes much more sense of it than Buck. If I remember correctly, Annette postulates that Elizabeth is asking one of Richard's counselors to urge him to stop negotiating a marriage for himself to some noble not of Portugal, but to focus on negotiating the marriages for himself and Elizabeth with the Portuguese. She wasn't urging Norfolk to urge Richard to marry her; she essentially wanted a double wedding and was trying to redirect her uncle's focus. He's her "only joy and maker in this world" because he's the only one who can "make" her marriage.
Annette points out that the lack of punctuation changes the meaning, depending on how one reads the letter.
Annette interprets Elizabeth's comment of, "I fear the queen will never die," as Elizabeth being friends with Anne, emotionally wrought, and essentially saying, "I'm afraid her suffering will never end; death would be kinder than the agony she's in now."
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
Hi, Ishita,
In Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter entirely differently from Buck, and she makes much more sense of it than Buck. If I remember correctly, Annette postulates that Elizabeth is asking one of Richard's counselors to urge him to stop negotiating a marriage for himself to some noble not of Portugal, but to focus on negotiating the marriages for himself and Elizabeth with the Portuguese. She wasn't urging Norfolk to urge Richard to marry her; she essentially wanted a double wedding and was trying to redirect her uncle's focus. He's her "only joy and maker in this world" because he's the only one who can "make" her marriage.
Annette points out that the lack of punctuation changes the meaning, depending on how one reads the letter.
Annette interprets Elizabeth's comment of, "I fear the queen will never die," as Elizabeth being friends with Anne, emotionally wrought, and essentially saying, "I'm afraid her suffering will never end; death would be kinder than the agony she's in now."
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Btw, where can we see the so called letter from E of Y?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The original letter (from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk) is apparently lost, but a paraphrased version of it appears in Sir George Buck's "The History of Richard III," the first important vindication of Richard. (Buck discovered Titulus Regius.) Supposedly, Elizabeth called Richard "her only joy and maker in this world" and feels that "the queen will never die." The letter as Buck presents it leaves an unflattering impression of Elizabeth of York, but he had no knowledge of the marriage negotiations with Portugal and may have misrepresented it, especially if he was paraphrasing from memory rather than from the actual letter. (I have no doubt that some such letter existed and that Buck saw it; he was a reputable historian, and it's through him that later historians learned of the Croyland Chronicle.)
>
> The book was written in 1619, published posthumously in a corrupt edition in 1647, and finally published in a corrected edition in the twentieth century. The best edition is probably Anne Sutton's from 1982. You can sample it at Google Books by doing a search for a key phrase
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3f8WAQAAIAAJ&hl=en
>
> but the only online editions I know of are for the corrupt 1647 version.
>
> Maybe someone else has additional information.
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-22 16:47:13
--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Carol I'm not sure what you mean re The last person Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is henry Tudor, I did not suggest this at all, have you missread my meaning.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Â Christine
>
Carol responds:
My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you suggested that Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor while Richard was still alive. I just meant that she need have no such fear; he would not have let Tudor come near her. He was already in the process of finding her another (and much more royal) husband. If you meant that she was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor *after* Richard's death, those fears were confirmed.
Carol
>
> Hi Carol I'm not sure what you mean re The last person Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is henry Tudor, I did not suggest this at all, have you missread my meaning.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Â Christine
>
Carol responds:
My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you suggested that Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor while Richard was still alive. I just meant that she need have no such fear; he would not have let Tudor come near her. He was already in the process of finding her another (and much more royal) husband. If you meant that she was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor *after* Richard's death, those fears were confirmed.
Carol
Re: Why Richard lost his throne
2013-01-23 08:34:18
Hi Carol, that's ok I need to make my info a bit clearer I think, I tend to be a person of few words and don't like to waffle on.
You have it right after Richard's death.
Loyaulte me Lie
Best Wishes
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2013, 16:47
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Carol I'm not sure what you mean re The last person Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is henry Tudor, I did not suggest this at all, have you missread my meaning.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Â Christine
>
Carol responds:
My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you suggested that Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor while Richard was still alive. I just meant that she need have no such fear; he would not have let Tudor come near her. He was already in the process of finding her another (and much more royal) husband. If you meant that she was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor *after* Richard's death, those fears were confirmed.
Carol
You have it right after Richard's death.
Loyaulte me Lie
Best Wishes
Christine
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2013, 16:47
Subject: Re: Why Richard lost his throne
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Carol I'm not sure what you mean re The last person Richard would have allowed Elizabeth to marry is henry Tudor, I did not suggest this at all, have you missread my meaning.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Â Christine
>
Carol responds:
My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you suggested that Elizabeth was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor while Richard was still alive. I just meant that she need have no such fear; he would not have let Tudor come near her. He was already in the process of finding her another (and much more royal) husband. If you meant that she was afraid of marrying Henry Tudor *after* Richard's death, those fears were confirmed.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.