Documentary
Documentary
2013-01-24 10:55:12
I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 11:16:06
I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
Liz
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
Subject: Documentary
I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Liz
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
Subject: Documentary
I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 11:37:11
That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
>
> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> Subject: Documentary
>
>
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
>
> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> Subject: Documentary
>
>
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 11:40:05
Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 11:50:33
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 12:06:17
Oh no! Not Time Team....very disappointed...Eileen
On 24 Jan 2013, at 10:55, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
On 24 Jan 2013, at 10:55, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 13:05:04
Did anyone notice that in the press release from the RIII soc they say they will be launching a new website from 4th Feb.?
Does that mean they could have a new 'face' to put on it?
Just being provocative
Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:02
Subject: Re: Documentary
Oh no! Not Time Team....very disappointed...Eileen
On 24 Jan 2013, at 10:55, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Does that mean they could have a new 'face' to put on it?
Just being provocative
Hilary
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 12:02
Subject: Re: Documentary
Oh no! Not Time Team....very disappointed...Eileen
On 24 Jan 2013, at 10:55, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 13:57:28
Time Team is a programme where a group of archaeologists and historians have just three days to dig at a site and found out as much as they can about it. It can be an extremely interesting programme but unfortunately is fronted by an actor called Tony Robinson (who used to be in Blackadder if you've seen that) who is so full of himself it is quite nauseating. I remember once he asked one of the senior archaeologists (with whom he appeared to disagree about what they were digging up) something along the lines of "why is your opinion more important than mine?" I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or put my foot through the tv.
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:40
Subject: Re: Documentary
Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:40
Subject: Re: Documentary
Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 14:00:07
Time Team is a programme where a group of archaeologists and historians have just three days to dig at a site and found out as much as they can about it. It can be an extremely interesting programme but unfortunately is fronted by an actor called Tony Robinson (who used to be in Blackadder if you've seen that) who is so full of himself it is quite nauseating. I remember once he asked one of the senior archaeologists (with whom he appeared to disagree about what they were digging up) something along the lines of "why is your opinion more important than mine?" I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or put my foot through the tv.
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:40
Subject: Re: Documentary
Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:40
Subject: Re: Documentary
Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > Subject: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > Paul
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 17:23:15
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 17:27:22
Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
Jacq
To:
From: stephenmlark@...
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:23:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
Jacq
To:
From: stephenmlark@...
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:23:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:09:54
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:27:23
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:37:14
Hi Carol,
I'm not sure if he does or not. He's the one with the curly hair who plays the grim reaper.
Jacq
Sent from my iPod
On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:10, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
I'm not sure if he does or not. He's the one with the curly hair who plays the grim reaper.
Jacq
Sent from my iPod
On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:10, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:44:35
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:50:08
No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 18:58:46
I have it strictly in confidence, that Rowen Atkinson will be portraying the true events at Bosworth
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> That is hilarious....... Thanks.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
>> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
>> Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> That is hilarious....... Thanks.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
>> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
>> Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 19:00:19
Pamela, its not you , its me:D
Wow, I never thought I will ever say these dreaded words ; )
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Wow, I never thought I will ever say these dreaded words ; )
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 19:02:04
Noooooooo, Mr. Bean????
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I have it strictly in confidence, that Rowen Atkinson will be portraying the true events at Bosworth
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> That is hilarious....... Thanks.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
>> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
>> Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I have it strictly in confidence, that Rowen Atkinson will be portraying the true events at Bosworth
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> That is hilarious....... Thanks.
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
>> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
>> Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 19:03:22
True confessions....This is such an interesting group, very serious but then off on a tangent. I do believe that makes us NORMAL!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Pamela, its not you , its me:D
Wow, I never thought I will ever say these dreaded words ; )
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Pamela, its not you , its me:D
Wow, I never thought I will ever say these dreaded words ; )
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
No, no......I have a wacky sense of humor. That really was in the worst if taste, but still tickled the wacky bone. Sorry
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:44 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Good lord!
I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
Dour Me.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
That is hilarious....... Thanks.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 19:17:51
Whether true or not, do keep in mind some comedians have turned in some fine pieces of dramatic acting, as well. Michael Crawford seemed an awfully unlikely choice as the Phantom.... Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats in The Hustler and Robin Williams as Oliver Sachs in Awakenings, to name a couple more.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> Jacq
Carol responds:
Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 19:22:07
Lawrence Olivia as Richard III?
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> Whether true or not, do keep in mind some comedians have turned in some fine pieces of dramatic acting, as well. Michael Crawford seemed an awfully unlikely choice as the Phantom.... Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats in The Hustler and Robin Williams as Oliver Sachs in Awakenings, to name a couple more.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> Whether true or not, do keep in mind some comedians have turned in some fine pieces of dramatic acting, as well. Michael Crawford seemed an awfully unlikely choice as the Phantom.... Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats in The Hustler and Robin Williams as Oliver Sachs in Awakenings, to name a couple more.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 21:46:45
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 21:50:49
This one still works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 22:51:37
Simon Farnaby doesn't play Richard in Horrible Histories. He plays "Death" in the 'Stupid Deaths' sketches. Richard is played by Jim Howick, who gave him a lovely Yorkshire accent in the "Ghost of Richard III' sketch where he gives Shakespeare a telling off. Check them out on You Tube.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
> >
> > Simon Farnaby? That's sounds a bit odd...he stars in the children's programme Horrible Histories. I just thought he was a comedy actor.
> > Sounds an odd choice to me, but hey, what do I know?
> > Jacq
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Does he by any chance play Richard in "Horrible Histories"? If so, he's a great choice since he portrays Richard very favorable (unless you count his being chased by a wasp at the end of Richard's song). If anyone hasn't seen this depiction, thinking that it's silly or childish or anti-Richard, please think again and watch it just for fun (and to celebrate the fact that Ricardians have allies in strange places):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JczvS1PL4
>
> Carol
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 23:11:53
The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
This one still works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
This one still works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 23:28:58
Not available in the USA
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:46 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:46 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 23:40:07
From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
This one still works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
This one still works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
----- Original Message -----
From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > Subject: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-24 23:46:57
LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>"
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>"
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 00:02:47
He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...<mailto:lisa.holtjones@...>> wrote:
LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk<http://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk<http://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
stephenmlark%40talktalk.net<http://40talktalk.net>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com<http://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*<http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...<mailto:lisa.holtjones@...>> wrote:
LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk<http://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>"
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk<http://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
stephenmlark%40talktalk.net<http://40talktalk.net>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com<http://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*<http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 00:10:52
Jacqueline Harvey wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I'm not sure if he does or not. He's the one with the curly hair who plays the grim reaper.
Carol responds:
Oh. Definitely not the same actor. Too bad!
(After typing this response, I looked it up online. There's actually a question about it at Fanpop (whatever that is) with Simon Farnaby as one of the (wrong) answers. The correct answer is Jimmy Howick.
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/horrible-histories/quiz/show/662739/who-plays-richard-iii
He's even the same age as Richard at Bosworth--not quite thirty-three!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1377114/
Too bad they didn't choose him instead of Simon for the documentary. I really don't care for the musical Grim Reaper.
Carol
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I'm not sure if he does or not. He's the one with the curly hair who plays the grim reaper.
Carol responds:
Oh. Definitely not the same actor. Too bad!
(After typing this response, I looked it up online. There's actually a question about it at Fanpop (whatever that is) with Simon Farnaby as one of the (wrong) answers. The correct answer is Jimmy Howick.
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/horrible-histories/quiz/show/662739/who-plays-richard-iii
He's even the same age as Richard at Bosworth--not quite thirty-three!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1377114/
Too bad they didn't choose him instead of Simon for the documentary. I really don't care for the musical Grim Reaper.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 00:20:34
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
Carol responds:
Don't worry, Ishita. It'a a kids' show. The producers wouldn't do that--the irony would pass right over the children's heads. Richard III appears in only two other scenes that I know of, one in which he tells Shakespeare that he didn't have a hump, didn't say "My kingdom for a horse," and didn't kill anyone in battle when he was three years old, and another in which all the kings are listed and Richard shakes his head sadly when Henry VIII says that Richard was "bad"--not because of any crimes he committed but because he "fought my dad."
In other words, there's nothing ironic about the song and Richard is consistently portrayed as misunderstood. If you watch other episodes, you'll see that Henry VIII is treated much worse (for killing a lot of people, including two wives) but still in a humorous mode.
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it. I love "Horrible Histories."
Carol
>
> Good lord!
> I hope it is not a case of he says he did not but we are going to show he did it indeed?!!
> My sense of humor fails me when R is portrayed like a buffoon......Sigh.
> Dour Me.
Carol responds:
Don't worry, Ishita. It'a a kids' show. The producers wouldn't do that--the irony would pass right over the children's heads. Richard III appears in only two other scenes that I know of, one in which he tells Shakespeare that he didn't have a hump, didn't say "My kingdom for a horse," and didn't kill anyone in battle when he was three years old, and another in which all the kings are listed and Richard shakes his head sadly when Henry VIII says that Richard was "bad"--not because of any crimes he committed but because he "fought my dad."
In other words, there's nothing ironic about the song and Richard is consistently portrayed as misunderstood. If you watch other episodes, you'll see that Henry VIII is treated much worse (for killing a lot of people, including two wives) but still in a humorous mode.
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it. I love "Horrible Histories."
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 01:06:23
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 01:34:58
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
Carol responds:
I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
Carol responds:
I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 01:51:17
Oh goody, another mysterious papa...... Have you read about the archers? I am sure all of you have. They were amazing physical specimens. I had no idea until I read the book about Agincourt.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:06 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:06 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 02:02:19
What's he look like out of makeup/costume? In costume as death, he looks like a silly version of Prince Nuada from Hellboy 2, played by Luke Goss. And HE was a fantastic, multi-layered villain you wanted to live.
Um...sort of like Richard.
--- In , "angela" wrote:
> ...Richard is played by Jim Howick, who gave him a lovely Yorkshire accent in the "Ghost of Richard III' sketch where he gives Shakespeare a telling off. Check them out on You Tube.
Um...sort of like Richard.
--- In , "angela" wrote:
> ...Richard is played by Jim Howick, who gave him a lovely Yorkshire accent in the "Ghost of Richard III' sketch where he gives Shakespeare a telling off. Check them out on You Tube.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 02:51:37
Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this document till today......
The doc also says R killed the boys!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
The doc also says R killed the boys!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV, can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not Tony Robinson.
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 02:56:33
There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
wish this story would die quietly.
Karen
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
document till today......
The doc also says R killed the boys!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer
who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> > wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi> @...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk> >
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk> >
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
ature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the
'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
wish this story would die quietly.
Karen
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
document till today......
The doc also says R killed the boys!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer
who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> > wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi> @...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk> >
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk> >
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
ature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the
'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 03:15:49
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 03:23:14
The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
I must have missed the concrete evidence!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
>
> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>
> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>
>
I must have missed the concrete evidence!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
>
> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>
> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 03:53:50
George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 04:06:37
If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 04:09:49
There really is so very little proof of anything, including the
pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
interesting and, at time, frustrating.
Karen
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared
Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that
Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was
legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
interesting and, at time, frustrating.
Karen
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
listening to the same old s***!
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared
Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that
Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
onward.
> >
> > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was
legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> >
> > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 04:20:26
That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
>
> George
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
>
> > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > >
> > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
>
> George
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
>
> > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > >
> > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 04:31:11
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
2013-01-25 05:22:33
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, IshitaBandyobandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of IshitaBandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfieldgbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , IshitaBandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about TitulusRegius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, IshitaBandyobandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of IshitaBandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfieldgbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , IshitaBandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about TitulusRegius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 06:01:31
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
2013-01-25 10:10:57
Hi
I believe it was actually a smear put about by Cis herself when she didn't like the Woodville marriage - bit of a family row; but you're right Warwick did bring it up.
________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 5:22
Subject: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, IshitaBandyobandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of IshitaBandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfieldgbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , IshitaBandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about TitulusRegius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I believe it was actually a smear put about by Cis herself when she didn't like the Woodville marriage - bit of a family row; but you're right Warwick did bring it up.
________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 5:22
Subject: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, IshitaBandyobandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of IshitaBandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfieldgbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , IshitaBandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about TitulusRegius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 10:33:19
I have a lurking suspicion that our County Record Offices and an attic near you could still hold some evidence. I know the CROs have been good at cataloguing their stuff lately but who knows what was misfiled 50 or 100 years ago by some bored clerk. The age we're talking about generated a prodigious amount of paperwork if you look at all the land transfers and disputes in the CROs and National Archives. I know HT and Morton had the odd bonfire but they couldn't have permeated every home and town. And forget Walsingham, this was the age of spies - they all had their spy network. I bet Louis XI knew what Eddie had for breakfast every day. What did the spies do with all the material - eat it all? Or hide it abroad? From the dearth of material anyone would think we were dealing with 485 - perhaps that's what HT wanted? I remain optimistic that 'something will turn up'. Hilary
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree, if you ask the same questions you will always get the same answers and depending on your viewpoint the same predetermined result
I cannot help thinking that new evidence may crop up , perhaps in a remote monastery or chapel in Normandy were H8 could not touch it after all we may have found a king under a car park!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...> wrote:
> That is the problem, George. " No concrete proof" either way. And that lack of proof has been dogging him for 600 years......... The word " likely" used again and again in that documentary is scary...... I am not sure what to think of the Rouen documents......Again the word " likely" was bandied about......
> Sometime I feel we are just going around in circle; not getting any nearer to the truth than it was all those years ago. Very dispiriting.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you look again at everything that has and was said NO concrete evidence has been found to prove (or disprove ) the culpability of R3 in the deaths of the 2 princes as my professor always said great idea show me the proof
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> > I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up listening to the same old s***!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@... > wrote:
> >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483 onward.
> > > >
> > > > What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 11:12:57
To the Tower with you!
And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
>> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
>> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "<mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>"
>> <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "<mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
>> can anyone watch this now?:
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:
>> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
>> To: <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
>> To: <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
>> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
>> not Tony Robinson.
>>
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> --- In <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>
>>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
>> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
>> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
>> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
>> his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liz
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
>> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
>> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
>> begins.
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
>> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
>> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "<mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>"
>> <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "<mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
>> can anyone watch this now?:
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:
>> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
>> To: <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
>> To: <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
>> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
>> not Tony Robinson.
>>
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> --- In <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>
>>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
>> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
>> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
>> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
>> his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liz
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
>> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
>> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
>> begins.
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 11:20:58
All I remember about that documentary was thinking what a nice trip to Australia Tony Robinson and his crew got out of it!
Like the Bosworth programme [or rather Tony Robinson travels round England in the summer, with a short visit to a place called Bosworth] it was more about the presenter than anything.
Bosworth and Richard both played minor supporting parts.
As for the pre-contract Karen, I would call a document presented to Parliament and enshrined in the law proof positive. Especially in regard of the lengths Tudor went to to destroy all copies of it.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 04:09, Karen Clark wrote:
> There really is so very little proof of anything, including the
> pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
> we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
> the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
> Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
> interesting and, at time, frustrating.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
> R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
> narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
> listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
>> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
> been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
>> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
> <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
> evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
> program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared
> Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
> authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
> Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that
> Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
> onward.
>>>
>>> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
> supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was
> legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
> marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>>>
>>> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Like the Bosworth programme [or rather Tony Robinson travels round England in the summer, with a short visit to a place called Bosworth] it was more about the presenter than anything.
Bosworth and Richard both played minor supporting parts.
As for the pre-contract Karen, I would call a document presented to Parliament and enshrined in the law proof positive. Especially in regard of the lengths Tudor went to to destroy all copies of it.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 04:09, Karen Clark wrote:
> There really is so very little proof of anything, including the
> pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
> we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
> the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
> Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
> interesting and, at time, frustrating.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
> R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
> narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
> listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
>> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
> been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
>> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
> <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
> evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
> program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being declared
> Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
> authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
> Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster that
> Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
> onward.
>>>
>>> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
> supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested) was
> legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
> marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>>>
>>> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 11:22:24
Well said! Totally agree.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 06:01, P BARRETT wrote:
>>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 06:01, P BARRETT wrote:
>>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 11:37:17
Actually, as Prince Harry gets older, he looks more and more like his father (Charles). I think that old rumor is a dog that won't hunt anymore...Maire.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> To the Tower with you!
> And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
>
> > LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> > she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
> >
> > On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> >> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> >> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> >> To: "
>> %40yahoogroups.com>"
> >>
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This one still works
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> >> To: "
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >>
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> >> can anyone watch this now?:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> >> To:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >>
> >> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: fletcher_kate@...
> >> To:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> >> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> >> not Tony Robinson.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >>
> >> --- In
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>>
> >>> --- In
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> >> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> >> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> >> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> >> his head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Liz
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> >> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> >> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> >> begins.
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> To the Tower with you!
> And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
>
> > LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> > she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
> >
> > On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> >> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> >> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> >> To: "
>> %40yahoogroups.com>"
> >>
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This one still works
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> >> To: "
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >>
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> >> can anyone watch this now?:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
> >> To:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >>
> >> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >>
> >> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: fletcher_kate@...
> >> To:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Documentary
> >>
> >> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> >> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> >> not Tony Robinson.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >>
> >> --- In
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >>>
> >>> --- In
>> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> >> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> >> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> >> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> >> his head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Liz
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> >>>>> Subject: Documentary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> >> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> >> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> >>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> >> begins.
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 11:46:34
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 12:12:32
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> Reply-To:
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> Reply-To:
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 12:37:47
Hilary
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 12:39:53
I have two redhaired children and had understood that redhair comes from a
recessive gene, and once a redhaired child is born to a couple, all the
children will be the same. Turns out, this isn't correct. It applies to my
two youngest, both classic reds, but other shades don't require the
recessive genes carried by both parents. Prince Harry's more properly
'ginger' and that is one of the single-source shades of red.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:22:21 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Well said! Totally agree.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 06:01, P BARRETT wrote:
>>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father
when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should
perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
recessive gene, and once a redhaired child is born to a couple, all the
children will be the same. Turns out, this isn't correct. It applies to my
two youngest, both classic reds, but other shades don't require the
recessive genes carried by both parents. Prince Harry's more properly
'ginger' and that is one of the single-source shades of red.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:22:21 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Well said! Totally agree.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 06:01, P BARRETT wrote:
>>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father
when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should
perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 12:47:19
Paul, sadly we don't know what Stillington's evidence was and it isn't
testable. For instance, we have no date and venue for the reported wedding.
While I don't by any means discard the precontract, I don't think the
evidence for it is quite solid enough. I understand that you (and many
others) do and there's no issue with that. There are a lot of things I think
are uncertain, and the precontract is one of them. That it was accepted at
the time might mean Parliament had more information than we do, or it may
have been a matter of some sense of self-preservation. It's certainly
plausible enough to be true, given the secret marriage of Edward's we do
know about.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:20:55 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
All I remember about that documentary was thinking what a nice trip to
Australia Tony Robinson and his crew got out of it!
Like the Bosworth programme [or rather Tony Robinson travels round England
in the summer, with a short visit to a place called Bosworth] it was more
about the presenter than anything.
Bosworth and Richard both played minor supporting parts.
As for the pre-contract Karen, I would call a document presented to
Parliament and enshrined in the law proof positive. Especially in regard of
the lengths Tudor went to to destroy all copies of it.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 04:09, Karen Clark wrote:
> There really is so very little proof of anything, including the
> pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
> we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
> the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
> Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
> interesting and, at time, frustrating.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
> R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
> narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
> listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
>> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
> been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
>> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
> evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
> program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being
declared
> Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
> authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
> Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster
that
> Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
> onward.
>>>
>>> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
> supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested)
was
> legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
> marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>>>
>>> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
testable. For instance, we have no date and venue for the reported wedding.
While I don't by any means discard the precontract, I don't think the
evidence for it is quite solid enough. I understand that you (and many
others) do and there's no issue with that. There are a lot of things I think
are uncertain, and the precontract is one of them. That it was accepted at
the time might mean Parliament had more information than we do, or it may
have been a matter of some sense of self-preservation. It's certainly
plausible enough to be true, given the secret marriage of Edward's we do
know about.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:20:55 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
All I remember about that documentary was thinking what a nice trip to
Australia Tony Robinson and his crew got out of it!
Like the Bosworth programme [or rather Tony Robinson travels round England
in the summer, with a short visit to a place called Bosworth] it was more
about the presenter than anything.
Bosworth and Richard both played minor supporting parts.
As for the pre-contract Karen, I would call a document presented to
Parliament and enshrined in the law proof positive. Especially in regard of
the lengths Tudor went to to destroy all copies of it.
Paul
On 25 Jan 2013, at 04:09, Karen Clark wrote:
> There really is so very little proof of anything, including the
> pre-contract, that most of us are free to choose what we 'believe' and what
> we don't. So, from the same documentary (for instance) someone can accept
> the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate and reject the argument that
> Richard killed the princes. Or vice versa. It's what makes this all so
> interesting and, at time, frustrating.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:53:45 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George, come on! The way the narrator said it sounds like in all probability
> R killed the boys......That there is no concrete proof did not matter to the
> narrator. Circumstantial evidence seems to be enough..
> I thought the doc will talk about the Bosworth campaign and ended up
> listening to the same old s***!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
>> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has
> been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
>> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> I think that the claim that Edward was illegitimate rests on about as much
> evidence as the claim that Richard killed the "Princes"--very little. the
> program, of course, "proved" nothing. It didn't mention Richard's being
declared
> Protector in Edward's will and said nothing about Titulus Regius. Even the
> authorities interviewed for the Protectorate segment were anti-Richard (Keith
> Dockray and A. J. Pollard). True, they conceded that he wasn't the monster
that
> Tudor propaganda painted him, but, overall, they toed the Tudor line from 1483
> onward.
>>>
>>> What counts to me is not whether Edward IV (whom Richare loyally
> supported--not just to escape Clarence's fate, as the documentary suggested)
was
> legitimate but whether the "Princes" were. And I'm quite convinced that the
> marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and invalid.
>>>
>>> Carol, who needless to say did not like the Robinson documentary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 12:52:56
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However, the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However, the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 13:09:18
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
2013-01-25 13:21:20
Richard was at Pointoise for around 4/5 weeks, Cicely was in Rouen. According to Google it takes around one and a half hours to drive from one to the other and 19 hours to walk it! I find it quite likely that either Richard or Cicely could have met each other during the relevant period and it wouldn't have taken more than a couple of days on horseback.
I really believe that people who come up with some of these theories have no common sense - do any of us seriously think that Cicely would have risked everything for a quick fumble with an archer?
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 5:22
Subject: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 13:24:33
Well if he and Hewitt both had brown hair no one would even think of it.
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:37
Subject: Re: Documentary
Actually, as Prince Harry gets older, he looks more and more like his father (Charles). I think that old rumor is a dog that won't hunt anymore...Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> To the Tower with you!
> And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
>
> > LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> > she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
> >
> > On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> >> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:37
Subject: Re: Documentary
Actually, as Prince Harry gets older, he looks more and more like his father (Charles). I think that old rumor is a dog that won't hunt anymore...Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> To the Tower with you!
> And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
> Paul
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
>
> > LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> > she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
> >
> > On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> >> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >>
> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
>> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 13:25:03
Karen,
In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464 when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!) In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
Reply-To:
>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> Reply-To:
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464 when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!) In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
Reply-To:
>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> Reply-To:
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> > > To: "
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 13:50:32
Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 13:54:54
Yep Our Eddie must have had some fun making those two retract their claws! Hilary
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 13:50
Subject: Re: Documentary
Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 13:50
Subject: Re: Documentary
Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 14:21:47
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
2013-01-25 14:36:22
Great point, and the answer is NO, she would not have.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
Richard was at Pointoise for around 4/5 weeks, Cicely was in Rouen. According to Google it takes around one and a half hours to drive from one to the other and 19 hours to walk it! I find it quite likely that either Richard or Cicely could have met each other during the relevant period and it wouldn't have taken more than a couple of days on horseback.
I really believe that people who come up with some of these theories have no common sense - do any of us seriously think that Cicely would have risked everything for a quick fumble with an archer?
From: Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 5:22
Subject: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use * Send us Feedback
.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
Richard was at Pointoise for around 4/5 weeks, Cicely was in Rouen. According to Google it takes around one and a half hours to drive from one to the other and 19 hours to walk it! I find it quite likely that either Richard or Cicely could have met each other during the relevant period and it wouldn't have taken more than a couple of days on horseback.
I really believe that people who come up with some of these theories have no common sense - do any of us seriously think that Cicely would have risked everything for a quick fumble with an archer?
From: Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 5:22
Subject: Documentary about Edward IV's Supposed Illegitimacy
It's a long time since I saw this, but didn't it all boil down to a few days around which the conception was supposed to have taken place? There are several things about this - some women don't produce infants to a strict timetable - some arrive earlier than expected, whereas others are late. The Duke was about his business in France - who's to say he didn't come back for a bit of R and R. However, the most telling point I feel is the one Karen made earlier. Richard of York treated Edward not only as his son, but as his heir. Given that Richard of York was so hot on his own claim to the throne via legitimate descent, why would he accept an archer's illegitimate son as his heir and eventually a potential King, especially as he went on to have several more sons?
This was a smear put about by Warwick during his rebellion - probably had something to do with the fact that his elder daughter was married to Clarence, the next brother. It's a pity that it is still being aired.........
________________________________
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use * Send us Feedback
.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 14:37:42
Just like that other second son named Henry (the fat) - except that I can't find a red-haired close relative for him.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
To the Tower with you!
And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
>> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
>> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "
> %40yahoogroups.com>"
>>
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>>
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
>> can anyone watch this now?:
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
>> To:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: fletcher_kate@...
>> To:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
>> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
>> not Tony Robinson.
>>
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> --- In
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>
>>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>>
>>> --- In
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
>> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
>> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
>> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
>> his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liz
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
>> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
>> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
>> begins.
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
To the Tower with you!
And Harry is definitely a Windsor. As for his colouring and appearance look no further than Diana's brother, a dead ringer for his nephew.
Paul
On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:46, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
>> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
>> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "
> %40yahoogroups.com>"
>>
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>>
>> To: "
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>>
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>>
>> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
>> can anyone watch this now?:
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
>> To:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>>
>>
>> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: fletcher_kate@...
>> To:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
>> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
>> not Tony Robinson.
>>
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>>
>> --- In
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>
>>> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
>>>
>>> --- In
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
>> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
>> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
>> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
>> his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liz
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
>>>>> Subject: Documentary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
>> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
>> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
>>>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
>> begins.
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 14:42:25
Lol..My money would have been on Proud Cis....What a gal! Eileen
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep Our Eddie must have had some fun making those two retract their claws! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 13:50
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> > with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> > mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> > Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> > rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> > To: ""
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> > (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> > negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> > think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> > Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> > was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> > archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> > >
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> > a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> > Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> > me.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > >
> > Reply-To:
> > >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> > To: "
> >
> >
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen
> > Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> > connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > > wish this story would die quietly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > > Reply-To:
> >
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > > To: "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > > document till today......
> > > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> > archer
> > > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > > G
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until
> > > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> >
> >
> > > @...>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This one still works
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "@...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> > 9&fe
> > > ature=results_video
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > > To:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > > Tony Robinson.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> >
> >
> > > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In
> >
> >
> > > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > >>> Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> > head.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Liz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the
> > > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > >>>> Paul
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep Our Eddie must have had some fun making those two retract their claws! Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 13:50
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> > with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> > mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> > Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> > rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> > To: ""
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> > (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> > negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> > think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> > Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> > was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> > archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> > >
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> > a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> > Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> > me.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> > >
> > Reply-To:
> > >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> > To: "
> >
> >
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen
> > Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> > connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > > wish this story would die quietly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > > Reply-To:
> >
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > > To: "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > > document till today......
> > > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> > archer
> > > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > > G
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until
> > > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> >
> >
> > > @...>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This one still works
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "@...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> > 9&fe
> > > ature=results_video
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > > To:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > > Tony Robinson.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> >
> >
> > > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In
> >
> >
> > > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > >>> Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> > head.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Liz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the
> > > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > >>>> Paul
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 14:48:43
"I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me."
What the documentary didn't point out was that if he was legitimate it would mean he was born at 36 weeks. Dangerously premature in the 15th century, so of course he had a hurried baptism in the castle chapel, probably on the day he was born. On the other hand Cis could have convinced her husband that the baby was premature and bribed or threatened the birth-attendants to go along with the story... Men were firmly excluded from the mysteries of childbirth
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me."
What the documentary didn't point out was that if he was legitimate it would mean he was born at 36 weeks. Dangerously premature in the 15th century, so of course he had a hurried baptism in the castle chapel, probably on the day he was born. On the other hand Cis could have convinced her husband that the baby was premature and bribed or threatened the birth-attendants to go along with the story... Men were firmly excluded from the mysteries of childbirth
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 15:02:51
York wasn't as far away from Cecily as the documentary suggests. I'll need
to check where he was, but he could have got back in time for a bit of a
cuddle. What seems to have happened with this documentary, is that the
writers were operating from the 'where there's smoke there's fire'
principle. Politics then, as now, was a dirty business. Not everything
written in every manifesto was the literal truth. Cecily's own words, in her
will, name York as Edward's father several times. Given her piety, I can't
see her lying in such a document. Her immortal soul meant much to her (given
the indulgences she was buried with). And given her sensitivity to rank, I'm
not sure she'd have 'lowered' herself to cavort with a mere archer. This
story makes no sense to me on so many levels.
Karen
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:48:41 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Documentary
"I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me."
What the documentary didn't point out was that if he was legitimate it would
mean he was born at 36 weeks. Dangerously premature in the 15th century, so
of course he had a hurried baptism in the castle chapel, probably on the day
he was born. On the other hand Cis could have convinced her husband that the
baby was premature and bribed or threatened the birth-attendants to go along
with the story... Men were firmly excluded from the mysteries of childbirth
to check where he was, but he could have got back in time for a bit of a
cuddle. What seems to have happened with this documentary, is that the
writers were operating from the 'where there's smoke there's fire'
principle. Politics then, as now, was a dirty business. Not everything
written in every manifesto was the literal truth. Cecily's own words, in her
will, name York as Edward's father several times. Given her piety, I can't
see her lying in such a document. Her immortal soul meant much to her (given
the indulgences she was buried with). And given her sensitivity to rank, I'm
not sure she'd have 'lowered' herself to cavort with a mere archer. This
story makes no sense to me on so many levels.
Karen
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:48:41 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Documentary
"I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me."
What the documentary didn't point out was that if he was legitimate it would
mean he was born at 36 weeks. Dangerously premature in the 15th century, so
of course he had a hurried baptism in the castle chapel, probably on the day
he was born. On the other hand Cis could have convinced her husband that the
baby was premature and bribed or threatened the birth-attendants to go along
with the story... Men were firmly excluded from the mysteries of childbirth
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 16:32:38
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 16:41:33
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
Carol responds:
The document only states that Richard Duke of York was not in Rouen at the time of Edward's conception. (Of course, it says nothing about whether Cecily was with him.) It says nothing about Richard (III), who would not be born for another eleven years. Possibly, you have the document confused with the documentary--or, rather, the tentative conclusions reached by the participants in the documentary?
Carol
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
Carol responds:
The document only states that Richard Duke of York was not in Rouen at the time of Edward's conception. (Of course, it says nothing about whether Cecily was with him.) It says nothing about Richard (III), who would not be born for another eleven years. Possibly, you have the document confused with the documentary--or, rather, the tentative conclusions reached by the participants in the documentary?
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 16:50:36
George Butterfield wrote:
>
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol responds:
Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol
>
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol responds:
Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 16:53:46
And before anyone leaps in I'm not saying I think Ed was illegitimate - just that Cis could possibly have enjoyed 'stirring it' at times! H.
Like it too Karen.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com
>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
"
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Like it too Karen.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com
>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
"
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 16:57:45
> Karen, that is too funny!!!
And somehow brings to mind an image of Richard and Cecily as portrayed by Richard Briers and Penelope Wilton in 'Ever Decreasing Circles' mode - presumably with Peter Egan as the archer who excels at everything who's just moved in next door...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ">
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
And somehow brings to mind an image of Richard and Cecily as portrayed by Richard Briers and Penelope Wilton in 'Ever Decreasing Circles' mode - presumably with Peter Egan as the archer who excels at everything who's just moved in next door...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ">
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 17:00:01
Lovely.......and highly amusing!
On Jan 25, 2013, at 10:57 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98@...>> wrote:
> Karen, that is too funny!!!
And somehow brings to mind an image of Richard and Cecily as portrayed by Richard Briers and Penelope Wilton in 'Ever Decreasing Circles' mode - presumably with Peter Egan as the archer who excels at everything who's just moved in next door...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>@yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
On Jan 25, 2013, at 10:57 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98@...>> wrote:
> Karen, that is too funny!!!
And somehow brings to mind an image of Richard and Cecily as portrayed by Richard Briers and Penelope Wilton in 'Ever Decreasing Circles' mode - presumably with Peter Egan as the archer who excels at everything who's just moved in next door...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>@yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary(Don't hurt me!)
2013-01-25 17:01:51
White Queen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzMJPrMijc
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ">
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzMJPrMijc
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen, that is too funny!!!
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Yes, the 'no fancy christening' is pretty poor 'evidence' put alongside
York's implicit acknowledgement of Edward as his son. The conversation would
have had to have gone something like this: "Yes, I will consider him my son
and, yes, he will inherit my titles and my estates but, and I'm standing
firm on this, Cis: He's not going to get a big fancy christening!"
Karen
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:52:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: ">
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
It's also been pointed out that either Richard or Cecily could have visited
each other during the relevant time period.
Another part of the "reason" Edward is said by some to be illegitimate is
because he didn't have a big fancy christening like Edmund did. However,
the child before him had died as an infant and they may have thought it best
to get him christened quickly, just in case (I've seen that happening in my
own family history) and my understanding was that Edward and Geroge were
physically very alike, except Edward was taller.
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
To: "
"
>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 1:06
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo"
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys think
about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 17:49:25
The only concrete is between Robinson's ears.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
George Butterfield wrote:
>
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol responds:
Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
George Butterfield wrote:
>
> The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> I must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol responds:
Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 18:36:02
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
Carol responds:
Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
Carol
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
Carol responds:
Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 18:43:33
ROFL......eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The only concrete is between Robinson's ears.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
>
> I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The only concrete is between Robinson's ears.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
>
> I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 18:54:49
I think so.....and for the French to call Edward the son of a lowly archer...Blaybourne...was just about one of the worst insults they could think of.......how they must have chortled...all over France..chortling away...'the English king is the son of an archer'.....Its a bit on the lines of today saying that Prince Charles is the son of a guardsman/beefeater/guardsman...hilarious...Not! Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
>
> I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
>
> I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
>
> By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
>
> Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
>
> I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
>
> I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
>
> By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
>
> Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 19:17:09
That sounds like a very real scenario!
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
Carol responds:
Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
Carol
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, "If he has the brass to marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!" And then all of her attendants are all, "True that! Wait, what?"
Carol responds:
Hi, McJohn. Haven't heard from you for awhile. It's good to have you back.
I suspect that you're right--the rumor that Cicely denied Edward's legitimacy at the expense of your own reputation--after having attended his coronation, IIRC--has to be either invented or based on a misunderstanding of what really happened. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
I agree with Karen that the rumor of Edward's illegitimacy traces to Warwick (along with his dear friend Louis XI) and perhaps George of Clarence, who later exploited it.
By the way, Edward accused George of smuggling his (George's) son out of the country and substituting another child in his place (an illegitimate son), perhaps sending him to Burgundy? Does anyone know any more about that situation?
Where is Marie when we need her? I hope that she isn't ill.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 19:33:07
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
>
>
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 20:59:25
Didn't know they made concrete thick enough
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:43 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> ROFL......eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > The only concrete is between Robinson's ears.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
> >
> > I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:43 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> ROFL......eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > The only concrete is between Robinson's ears.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > The program did not prove that R3 killed the princes just reiterated what has been surmised since their deaths and possible discovery later.
> > > I must have missed the concrete evidence!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Exactly. the "proof" was simply a reiteration of the events of 1483 that left out important elements such as the "capture" of Edward V being Richard assuming his role as Protector and the possibility that the Woodvilles really were plotting against him. What you have in the program is Richard as good brother until 1483, Richard as evil plotter and murderer in the summer of 1483, and Richard as good king from that point forward. This is essentially the "moderate" anti-Richard attitude of Pollard, et al., but it has never made any sense in terms of human psychology or the known character of Richard III. (My own opinion.) The end of the program provides a twist, stating that Richard may have had a motive for what they presume to be the murder of the "Princes" other than the completely unmentioned illegitimacy of Edward's sons or ruthless ambition--a desire for purity of the Yorkist line and the belief that Edward, not his sons, was illegitimate, which is where the document comes in.
> >
> > I, too, must have missed the concrete evidence!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 22:07:36
How is she remarkable?
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 22:19:34
Well I was no great fan of Diana but I think you'll find a wax dummy can't have children
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:00
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
How is she remarkable?
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:00
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
How is she remarkable?
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 22:44:32
I was referring to the queen.
A Woman having children is remarkable, but not very unusual.
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:19
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Well I was no great fan of Diana but I think you'll find a wax dummy can't have children
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:00
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
How is she remarkable?
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
A Woman having children is remarkable, but not very unusual.
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:19
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Well I was no great fan of Diana but I think you'll find a wax dummy can't have children
________________________________
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 22:00
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
How is she remarkable?
For what will she be remembered?
Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 23:09:37
Please don't.....This is not the place for it....thank you Eileen
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-25 23:23:14
I agree that this is not the place for it. Princess Diana with all her faults and virtues is certainly very interesting to some, but this is a forum for people interested in Richard III and his times, any connection from him to Diana takes a massive stretch of imagination (though along with all the British nobility they are probably related remotely).
Cheers,
Dorothea
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Please don't.....This is not the place for it....thank you Eileen
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cheers,
Dorothea
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Please don't.....This is not the place for it....thank you Eileen
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 00:13:36
I don't think a wax dummy could have given Diana's two sons the foundation in real life outside palace walls, and compassion for other human beings that she did.
Maybe she also helped ensure that each of her sons can marry the woman he loves, rather than the one with the [allegedly] best bloodline.
Maybe she's also helped ensure that if another royal ever wants to marry for those bloodlines rather than for love, that royal won't neglect to tell the brood-mare of his choice that he doesn't love her and never will. Maybe he'll be wise enough to treat it as the business proposition it was in bygone centuries and not destroy a marriage almost from the moment it starts.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.
~Weds
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
Maybe she also helped ensure that each of her sons can marry the woman he loves, rather than the one with the [allegedly] best bloodline.
Maybe she's also helped ensure that if another royal ever wants to marry for those bloodlines rather than for love, that royal won't neglect to tell the brood-mare of his choice that he doesn't love her and never will. Maybe he'll be wise enough to treat it as the business proposition it was in bygone centuries and not destroy a marriage almost from the moment it starts.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.
~Weds
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 00:18:57
Once again, I apologize for ever been suggesting a possible modern day question or analogy. But, I quite agree, this is a Richard III site, and in just a few short days I have learned much and appreciate the avenues for reading, research and rumination.
Pamela (from USA)
On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
I don't think a wax dummy could have given Diana's two sons the foundation in real life outside palace walls, and compassion for other human beings that she did.
Maybe she also helped ensure that each of her sons can marry the woman he loves, rather than the one with the [allegedly] best bloodline.
Maybe she's also helped ensure that if another royal ever wants to marry for those bloodlines rather than for love, that royal won't neglect to tell the brood-mare of his choice that he doesn't love her and never will. Maybe he'll be wise enough to treat it as the business proposition it was in bygone centuries and not destroy a marriage almost from the moment it starts.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
Pamela (from USA)
On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
I don't think a wax dummy could have given Diana's two sons the foundation in real life outside palace walls, and compassion for other human beings that she did.
Maybe she also helped ensure that each of her sons can marry the woman he loves, rather than the one with the [allegedly] best bloodline.
Maybe she's also helped ensure that if another royal ever wants to marry for those bloodlines rather than for love, that royal won't neglect to tell the brood-mare of his choice that he doesn't love her and never will. Maybe he'll be wise enough to treat it as the business proposition it was in bygone centuries and not destroy a marriage almost from the moment it starts.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 00:43:15
Eileen wrote:
>
> I think so.....and for the French to call Edward the son of a lowly archer...Blaybourne...was just about one of the worst insults they could think of.......how they must have chortled...all over France..chortling away...'the English king is the son of an archer'..... [snip]
Carol responds:
If anyone posting to this thread is interested, there's a recent novel out that takes the Blayborgne (sp?) story seriously. It's "The Thwarted Queen" (our very own "queen by right, Cecily Neville) by Cynthia Sally Haggard. The various "books," each focusing on a stage in Cecily's life, have different narrative strategies, which is rather distracting. And whatever you do, don't read the prologue, which gives away a major plot point.
I'm not recommending the book, just pointing out its existence for the curious. You can read free Kindle excerpts for each "book" at Amazon.
Carol
>
> I think so.....and for the French to call Edward the son of a lowly archer...Blaybourne...was just about one of the worst insults they could think of.......how they must have chortled...all over France..chortling away...'the English king is the son of an archer'..... [snip]
Carol responds:
If anyone posting to this thread is interested, there's a recent novel out that takes the Blayborgne (sp?) story seriously. It's "The Thwarted Queen" (our very own "queen by right, Cecily Neville) by Cynthia Sally Haggard. The various "books," each focusing on a stage in Cecily's life, have different narrative strategies, which is rather distracting. And whatever you do, don't read the prologue, which gives away a major plot point.
I'm not recommending the book, just pointing out its existence for the curious. You can read free Kindle excerpts for each "book" at Amazon.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 02:18:48
Hilary
Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen,
In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen,
In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary
My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
(yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
>
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
me.
Karen
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
>
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen
Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> wish this story would die quietly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> document till today......
> The doc also says R killed the boys!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
archer
> who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > G
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.combandyoi>
> @...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This one still works
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> @yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
9&fe
> ature=results_video
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: fletcher_kate@... <mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> Tony Robinson.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
g-in
> -the-car-park
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
head.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Liz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
the
> 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
begins.
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 02:20:47
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 04:38:09
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the surviving manifestos.
Carol responds:
Karen, it wouldn't have been in a manifesto if only Cecily knew about it. I didn't suggest that Warwick or Clarence knew about it in the 1460s (though Clarence may have learned of it later). Stillington could easily have told Cecily, considering it his duty just as he later informed Richard for (apparently) the same reason. Yes, I'm speculating, but surely it makes more sense for Cecily to protest the illegitimacy of her grandchildren if Edward married Elizabeth than for her to denounce *him* as a bastard for doing so (which makes no sense at all).
Carol
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the surviving manifestos.
Carol responds:
Karen, it wouldn't have been in a manifesto if only Cecily knew about it. I didn't suggest that Warwick or Clarence knew about it in the 1460s (though Clarence may have learned of it later). Stillington could easily have told Cecily, considering it his duty just as he later informed Richard for (apparently) the same reason. Yes, I'm speculating, but surely it makes more sense for Cecily to protest the illegitimacy of her grandchildren if Edward married Elizabeth than for her to denounce *him* as a bastard for doing so (which makes no sense at all).
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 06:38:39
mcjohn wrote:
"Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, 'If he has the brass to
marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!' And then all of
her attendants are all, 'True that! Wait, what?'"
Different phraseology perhaps, but that's my take on the rumor.
Doug
"Could be something as simple as Cecily fuming, 'If he has the brass to
marry that cow, I'll call him a bastard right to his face!' And then all of
her attendants are all, 'True that! Wait, what?'"
Different phraseology perhaps, but that's my take on the rumor.
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 07:05:00
Carol
I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily
would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's
marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone
had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or
another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced
Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me
for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:38:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in the
1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence would
most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the surviving
manifestos.
Carol responds:
Karen, it wouldn't have been in a manifesto if only Cecily knew about it. I
didn't suggest that Warwick or Clarence knew about it in the 1460s (though
Clarence may have learned of it later). Stillington could easily have told
Cecily, considering it his duty just as he later informed Richard for
(apparently) the same reason. Yes, I'm speculating, but surely it makes more
sense for Cecily to protest the illegitimacy of her grandchildren if Edward
married Elizabeth than for her to denounce *him* as a bastard for doing so
(which makes no sense at all).
Carol
I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily
would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's
marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone
had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or
another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced
Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me
for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:38:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in the
1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence would
most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the surviving
manifestos.
Carol responds:
Karen, it wouldn't have been in a manifesto if only Cecily knew about it. I
didn't suggest that Warwick or Clarence knew about it in the 1460s (though
Clarence may have learned of it later). Stillington could easily have told
Cecily, considering it his duty just as he later informed Richard for
(apparently) the same reason. Yes, I'm speculating, but surely it makes more
sense for Cecily to protest the illegitimacy of her grandchildren if Edward
married Elizabeth than for her to denounce *him* as a bastard for doing so
(which makes no sense at all).
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 09:09:42
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 09:50:05
Would you like me to answer your last point?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothea Preis
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree that this is not the place for it. Princess Diana with all her faults and virtues is certainly very interesting to some, but this is a forum for people interested in Richard III and his times, any connection from him to Diana takes a massive stretch of imagination (though along with all the British nobility they are probably related remotely).
Cheers,
Dorothea
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Please don't.....This is not the place for it....thank you Eileen
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothea Preis
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
I agree that this is not the place for it. Princess Diana with all her faults and virtues is certainly very interesting to some, but this is a forum for people interested in Richard III and his times, any connection from him to Diana takes a massive stretch of imagination (though along with all the British nobility they are probably related remotely).
Cheers,
Dorothea
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Please don't.....This is not the place for it....thank you Eileen
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> How is she remarkable?
>
> For what will she be remembered?
>
> Waht has she done that, for example, a wax dummy couldn't have done?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: ""
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 14:15
> Subject: RE: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Â
> Oh my, I certainly meant absolutely no slur on Princess Diana, or the princes. I was merely pointing out the continuation of questions from early monarchies to the present. I thought Princess Diana was a marvelous woman, and the way she raised her boys was exceptional. I offer my sincere apologies to you about the slur.
> Also, I have no quibble about Queen Elizabeth II. What a remarkable woman she is. I am from the Colonies, so I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes. And again, I am sorry to have rolled over anyone's toes.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of P BARRETT
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
> the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
>
> Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 12:42:08
The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
something this potentially damaging to Edward.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
something this potentially damaging to Edward.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 14:03:42
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To:
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...
> >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To:
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 14:59:10
Ishita Bandyo wrote:
"Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense."
I fully agree that Warwick had no proof or he would have used it, but that
still doesn't rule out that Duchess Cecily didn't know, and had known from
almost the beginning, about the E4/Woodville "marriage". It wouldn't do her,
E4, or the kingdom any good to make such knowledge public while her son, who
WAS legitimate, was king and she was certainly intelligent enough to realize
that,
I know several historians, and novelists probably, have wondered about how
Cecily felt when Richard, via Titulus Regius, had her grandchildren declared
illegitimate; assuming her silence was due to fear or, worse yet, merely the
Duchess "getting back" at Elizabeth Woodville for the effrontery of marrying
Edward. What if that silence was because she knew they WERE illegitimate?
I'm with Hilary on this - where's those chests with all the diaries,
letters, and minutes of the Council meetings? Photos would be a really nice
extra, but I understand the Doctor is occupied elsewhere...
Doug
"Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense."
I fully agree that Warwick had no proof or he would have used it, but that
still doesn't rule out that Duchess Cecily didn't know, and had known from
almost the beginning, about the E4/Woodville "marriage". It wouldn't do her,
E4, or the kingdom any good to make such knowledge public while her son, who
WAS legitimate, was king and she was certainly intelligent enough to realize
that,
I know several historians, and novelists probably, have wondered about how
Cecily felt when Richard, via Titulus Regius, had her grandchildren declared
illegitimate; assuming her silence was due to fear or, worse yet, merely the
Duchess "getting back" at Elizabeth Woodville for the effrontery of marrying
Edward. What if that silence was because she knew they WERE illegitimate?
I'm with Hilary on this - where's those chests with all the diaries,
letters, and minutes of the Council meetings? Photos would be a really nice
extra, but I understand the Doctor is occupied elsewhere...
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 16:13:46
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 16:18:40
I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 16:39:02
Carol
I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still
have no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence
that parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence
we're lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's
claimed knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to
me) deeply suspicious. The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
unprovable.
I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
time.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:13:45 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily
would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's
marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had
spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another,
very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as
illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or
anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John
Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still
have no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence
that parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence
we're lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's
claimed knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to
me) deeply suspicious. The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
unprovable.
I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
time.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:13:45 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily
would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's
marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had
spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another,
very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as
illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or
anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
Carol responds:
Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John
Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 18:00:15
A marriage didn't need documentary proof, that's what witnesses were for. Parliament would have accepted Stillington's sworn statement that he had witnessed the marriage as proof.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 18:56:24
Precisely.
Stillington's testimony led to the petition of summer 1483 and to Titulus Regius, finally passed the following year (JA-H) and Richard commissioned a full ecclesiastical investigation of the legitimacy question - the results do not survive.
There were scarcely more participants in the Woodville marriage ceremony than the earlier Butler contract - the Woodville witnesses happened to include the bride's mother.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
A marriage didn't need documentary proof, that's what witnesses were for. Parliament would have accepted Stillington's sworn statement that he had witnessed the marriage as proof.
Stillington's testimony led to the petition of summer 1483 and to Titulus Regius, finally passed the following year (JA-H) and Richard commissioned a full ecclesiastical investigation of the legitimacy question - the results do not survive.
There were scarcely more participants in the Woodville marriage ceremony than the earlier Butler contract - the Woodville witnesses happened to include the bride's mother.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
A marriage didn't need documentary proof, that's what witnesses were for. Parliament would have accepted Stillington's sworn statement that he had witnessed the marriage as proof.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 19:15:33
If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick badly....Eileen
On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
> I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
> I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary/Marie
2013-01-26 19:32:15
Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
Eileen
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick badly....Eileen
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Eileen
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick badly....Eileen
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 20:24:36
Karen Clark wrote:
> I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
Carol responds:
It would probably be a good idea to read it as it's very informative on this particular topic. Admittedly, I don't agree with everything Ashdown-Hill says, but, then, no one ever agrees with anyone else on all points in historical matters since so much of what we "know" is a matter of interpretation.
Karen:
> How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still have no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence that parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence we're lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's claimed knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to me) deeply suspicious.
Carol responds:
Assuming that the marriage did take place, Eleanor's retreat to the chaste and pious life of a vowess or Carmelite tertiary (see Ashdown-Hill for an explanation of these terms) gives some indication of her feelings. Obviously, we can't *know* her motives for remaining silent (again, assuming that the marriage took place) any more than we know Richard's for taking the crown, but we can speculate intelligently rather than attempting to block discussion because of personal suspicion.
Meanwhile, the fact that Parliament publicly mentioned her name in Titulus Regius when she still had living relatives who might have denied the claim speaks volumes--as does the silence of Elizabeth Woodville and *her* relatives on the matter.
As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the passive voice makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to. If you mean me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As for Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all.
If you mean John Ashdown-Hill, it would be best to read his book and his arguments before attempting to refute them.
Anyway, Karen, please read other people's posts carefully. You seem to be putting words into my mouth or making assumptions about my views that have little or nothing to do with what I've actually said.
Carol
The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
> knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
> Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
> until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
> unprovable.
>
> I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
> I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
> precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
> during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
> temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
> time.
Carol responds:
Just to reiterate, *I never said that Warwick knew about it*. I agree with you that he would have used it as additional ammunition to attack Edward's marriage though perhaps it didn't interest him as much as the possibility of Edward IV's legitimacy since it was Edward IV's claim that he wished to dispute (either to promote George's or, later, to back Henry VI and his son, Warwick's son-in-law, Edward of Lancaster). It may be of interest that Edward IV's eldest son, Edward, was not born until November 2, 1470, and Warwick was killed at Barnet on April 14, 1471, only five and a half months later. Until November 1470, Edward had only daughters. Even if he'd had a son earlier on, I suspect that the son's legitimacy was of little interest to Warwick. It was Edward IV that he wanted to depose.
As for George of Clarence, as I said, he would not have known of it, if at all, until shortly before his execution on February 18, 1478--and *of course* the publicly stated charges against him would not have included such a dangerous secret.
At any rate, I'm not sure why you're presenting arguments that have nothing to do with what I suggested, which is merely that Cecily--not Warwick or Clarence--
> I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
Carol responds:
It would probably be a good idea to read it as it's very informative on this particular topic. Admittedly, I don't agree with everything Ashdown-Hill says, but, then, no one ever agrees with anyone else on all points in historical matters since so much of what we "know" is a matter of interpretation.
Karen:
> How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still have no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence that parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence we're lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's claimed knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to me) deeply suspicious.
Carol responds:
Assuming that the marriage did take place, Eleanor's retreat to the chaste and pious life of a vowess or Carmelite tertiary (see Ashdown-Hill for an explanation of these terms) gives some indication of her feelings. Obviously, we can't *know* her motives for remaining silent (again, assuming that the marriage took place) any more than we know Richard's for taking the crown, but we can speculate intelligently rather than attempting to block discussion because of personal suspicion.
Meanwhile, the fact that Parliament publicly mentioned her name in Titulus Regius when she still had living relatives who might have denied the claim speaks volumes--as does the silence of Elizabeth Woodville and *her* relatives on the matter.
As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the passive voice makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to. If you mean me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As for Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all.
If you mean John Ashdown-Hill, it would be best to read his book and his arguments before attempting to refute them.
Anyway, Karen, please read other people's posts carefully. You seem to be putting words into my mouth or making assumptions about my views that have little or nothing to do with what I've actually said.
Carol
The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
> knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
> Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
> until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
> unprovable.
>
> I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
> I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
> precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
> during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
> temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
> time.
Carol responds:
Just to reiterate, *I never said that Warwick knew about it*. I agree with you that he would have used it as additional ammunition to attack Edward's marriage though perhaps it didn't interest him as much as the possibility of Edward IV's legitimacy since it was Edward IV's claim that he wished to dispute (either to promote George's or, later, to back Henry VI and his son, Warwick's son-in-law, Edward of Lancaster). It may be of interest that Edward IV's eldest son, Edward, was not born until November 2, 1470, and Warwick was killed at Barnet on April 14, 1471, only five and a half months later. Until November 1470, Edward had only daughters. Even if he'd had a son earlier on, I suspect that the son's legitimacy was of little interest to Warwick. It was Edward IV that he wanted to depose.
As for George of Clarence, as I said, he would not have known of it, if at all, until shortly before his execution on February 18, 1478--and *of course* the publicly stated charges against him would not have included such a dangerous secret.
At any rate, I'm not sure why you're presenting arguments that have nothing to do with what I suggested, which is merely that Cecily--not Warwick or Clarence--
Re: Documentary/Marie
2013-01-26 20:29:27
Yay!!!
Thanks to Marie!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:32 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> Eileen
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick badly....Eileen
> > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Thanks to Marie!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:32 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> Eileen
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick badly....Eileen
> > On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word "bastard" figuratively.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and kept quiet.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Documentary/Marie
2013-01-26 20:33:56
Eileen wrote:
>
> Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> Eileen
Carol responds:
Excellent. I was hoping that she'd do exactly that. Any chance that her reply will appear on the revamped website when it debuts February 4?
Carol
>
> Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> Eileen
Carol responds:
Excellent. I was hoping that she'd do exactly that. Any chance that her reply will appear on the revamped website when it debuts February 4?
Carol
Re: Documentary/Marie
2013-01-26 21:19:57
Yes Carol...I believe that is the aim....I am absolutely so looking forward to it. This will resolve something that some posters..and me... found most objectionable...Hick's articles was going unchallenged...Eileen
On 26 Jan 2013, at 20:33, justcarol67 wrote:
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent. I was hoping that she'd do exactly that. Any chance that her reply will appear on the revamped website when it debuts February 4?
>
> Carol
>
>
On 26 Jan 2013, at 20:33, justcarol67 wrote:
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Carol asked yesterday if Marie was OK as she has not posted lately...I have been in touch and Marie sends her regards to all...She has and still is busy but hopes to get back on here as soon as she can. I dont think she will mind if I mention that she has written a reply to the article by Hicks on Queen Anne Neville to go on the Society website...Hooray for that...
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent. I was hoping that she'd do exactly that. Any chance that her reply will appear on the revamped website when it debuts February 4?
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 22:05:29
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 22:40:56
After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 22:54:05
Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-26 22:55:18
So, something I'd never thought about before. How well did Anne Neville know Eleanor Butler? I know Eleanor was quite a bit older so would they even have met, related or not? (I don't mean, by the way, that I think Eleanor would have told Anne about the marriage, I'm just curious)
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 9:09
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 9:09
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-26 23:55:34
Hey, gang, just chillin', waitin' for Feb. 4. Thanks for your kind greetings!
Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 00:20:36
McJohn wrote {in part):
> I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
Carol responds:
It looks as if you're thinking of a precontract as a betrothal or promise to marry. In fact, it means a preexisting marriage that makes a subsequent marriage invalid (bigamous).
Marie explained it better than I can back in message 11157
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/11157
"'Precontract' is NOT (as most historians, not specialists in canon law, have supposed) a medieval synonym for betrothal. It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner). Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract. Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville."
Also, the Titulus Regius itself identifies the precontract as a marriage:
"And here also we consider how that the said pretensed marriage was made privately and secretly, with edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church, after the laws of God's church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England. And how also, that at the time of the contract of the same pretensed marriage, and before and long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the said King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, long time before he made the said pretensed marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in manner and form aforesaid. Which premises being true, as in very truth they been true, it appears and follows evidently, that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, against the law of God and his Church . . . ."
So the matter isn't that hard to understand. Presumably, Stillington testified before Parliament (and previously informed Richard) that Edward *married* Eleanor Butler before his second "pretensed marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. The only complication is whether Stillington (as Richard and Parliament clearly believed) was telling the truth. And why he would risk his liberty lying about such a matter, having previously been imprisoned by Edward IV, I can't guess. It can't be revenge; Edward was already dead.
Carol
> I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
Carol responds:
It looks as if you're thinking of a precontract as a betrothal or promise to marry. In fact, it means a preexisting marriage that makes a subsequent marriage invalid (bigamous).
Marie explained it better than I can back in message 11157
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/11157
"'Precontract' is NOT (as most historians, not specialists in canon law, have supposed) a medieval synonym for betrothal. It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a marriage by the same couple, but is rather 'pre-' in the sense of being a 'prior' marriage (ie an earlier marriage with a different partner). Therefore Edward and Eleanor would not have entered into a precontract. Their union only became a precontract when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville."
Also, the Titulus Regius itself identifies the precontract as a marriage:
"And here also we consider how that the said pretensed marriage was made privately and secretly, with edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church, after the laws of God's church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England. And how also, that at the time of the contract of the same pretensed marriage, and before and long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the said King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, long time before he made the said pretensed marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in manner and form aforesaid. Which premises being true, as in very truth they been true, it appears and follows evidently, that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, against the law of God and his Church . . . ."
So the matter isn't that hard to understand. Presumably, Stillington testified before Parliament (and previously informed Richard) that Edward *married* Eleanor Butler before his second "pretensed marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. The only complication is whether Stillington (as Richard and Parliament clearly believed) was telling the truth. And why he would risk his liberty lying about such a matter, having previously been imprisoned by Edward IV, I can't guess. It can't be revenge; Edward was already dead.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 01:38:23
Carol
You said: "As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the
passive voice makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to.
If you mean me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As
for Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all."
I said: "given the number of people who it's claimed knew about it"
The use of the passive voice should have indicated quite clearly that it's
'the number of people' that's important here, hence moving it to subject
position. If I had 'put words into your mouth' I'd have said something like
'the number of people you claim knew about it'. Please read what I write
more carefully. You didn't mention the countess of Warwick and I didn't say
that you did.
It has been suggested, by different people in different forms, that
(variously) the earl of Warwick, the countess of Warwick, the duchess of
York, the duke of Clarence, bishop Stillington and (I forgot to mention her
earlier) Elizabeth Wydeville all knew about Edward IV's marriage to Eleanor
Butler. (And, of course, Edward and Eleanor themselves.) Despite the
political capital that could have been made from this potentially damaging
information, not one of them said anything until Stillington spoke up in
1483. That silence, from so many people, for such a long time, suggests very
very strongly to me that none of the people named (except Stillington and
Eleanor) knew anything at all.
To take it a step further, silence from Eleanor herself is one of the
reasons I'm not quite as ready to accept the precontract story (from the
whole cloth) as a lot of people are. That lots of other people DO accept the
story as it was told in 1483, I have no issue with. By the same token,
no-one should have any problems that, without further corroborating
evidence, even circumstantial, I have some doubts. Two (or more) people can
disagree about something without it being, or becoming, personal.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:24:34 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
> I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
Carol responds:
It would probably be a good idea to read it as it's very informative on this
particular topic. Admittedly, I don't agree with everything Ashdown-Hill
says, but, then, no one ever agrees with anyone else on all points in
historical matters since so much of what we "know" is a matter of
interpretation.
Karen:
> How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still have
no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence that
parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence we're
lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's claimed
knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to me) deeply
suspicious.
Carol responds:
Assuming that the marriage did take place, Eleanor's retreat to the chaste
and pious life of a vowess or Carmelite tertiary (see Ashdown-Hill for an
explanation of these terms) gives some indication of her feelings.
Obviously, we can't *know* her motives for remaining silent (again, assuming
that the marriage took place) any more than we know Richard's for taking the
crown, but we can speculate intelligently rather than attempting to block
discussion because of personal suspicion.
Meanwhile, the fact that Parliament publicly mentioned her name in Titulus
Regius when she still had living relatives who might have denied the claim
speaks volumes--as does the silence of Elizabeth Woodville and *her*
relatives on the matter.
As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the passive voice
makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to. If you mean
me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As for
Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all.
If you mean John Ashdown-Hill, it would be best to read his book and his
arguments before attempting to refute them.
Anyway, Karen, please read other people's posts carefully. You seem to be
putting words into my mouth or making assumptions about my views that have
little or nothing to do with what I've actually said.
Carol
The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
> knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
> Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
> until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
> unprovable.
>
> I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
> I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
> precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
> during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
> temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
> time.
Carol responds:
Just to reiterate, *I never said that Warwick knew about it*. I agree with
you that he would have used it as additional ammunition to attack Edward's
marriage though perhaps it didn't interest him as much as the possibility of
Edward IV's legitimacy since it was Edward IV's claim that he wished to
dispute (either to promote George's or, later, to back Henry VI and his son,
Warwick's son-in-law, Edward of Lancaster). It may be of interest that
Edward IV's eldest son, Edward, was not born until November 2, 1470, and
Warwick was killed at Barnet on April 14, 1471, only five and a half months
later. Until November 1470, Edward had only daughters. Even if he'd had a
son earlier on, I suspect that the son's legitimacy was of little interest
to Warwick. It was Edward IV that he wanted to depose.
As for George of Clarence, as I said, he would not have known of it, if at
all, until shortly before his execution on February 18, 1478--and *of
course* the publicly stated charges against him would not have included such
a dangerous secret.
At any rate, I'm not sure why you're presenting arguments that have nothing
to do with what I suggested, which is merely that Cecily--not Warwick or
Clarence--
You said: "As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the
passive voice makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to.
If you mean me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As
for Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all."
I said: "given the number of people who it's claimed knew about it"
The use of the passive voice should have indicated quite clearly that it's
'the number of people' that's important here, hence moving it to subject
position. If I had 'put words into your mouth' I'd have said something like
'the number of people you claim knew about it'. Please read what I write
more carefully. You didn't mention the countess of Warwick and I didn't say
that you did.
It has been suggested, by different people in different forms, that
(variously) the earl of Warwick, the countess of Warwick, the duchess of
York, the duke of Clarence, bishop Stillington and (I forgot to mention her
earlier) Elizabeth Wydeville all knew about Edward IV's marriage to Eleanor
Butler. (And, of course, Edward and Eleanor themselves.) Despite the
political capital that could have been made from this potentially damaging
information, not one of them said anything until Stillington spoke up in
1483. That silence, from so many people, for such a long time, suggests very
very strongly to me that none of the people named (except Stillington and
Eleanor) knew anything at all.
To take it a step further, silence from Eleanor herself is one of the
reasons I'm not quite as ready to accept the precontract story (from the
whole cloth) as a lot of people are. That lots of other people DO accept the
story as it was told in 1483, I have no issue with. By the same token,
no-one should have any problems that, without further corroborating
evidence, even circumstantial, I have some doubts. Two (or more) people can
disagree about something without it being, or becoming, personal.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:24:34 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
> I haven't read the book, no. I probably will at some point.
Carol responds:
It would probably be a good idea to read it as it's very informative on this
particular topic. Admittedly, I don't agree with everything Ashdown-Hill
says, but, then, no one ever agrees with anyone else on all points in
historical matters since so much of what we "know" is a matter of
interpretation.
Karen:
> How can we possibly know what Eleanor's wishes might have been? We still have
no concrete evidence that the marriage took place. We have evidence that
parliament accepted that it took place, and maybe they had the evidence we're
lacking. The decades long silence, given the number of people who it's claimed
knew about it (Cecily, Clarence, Warwick and his countess) is (to me) deeply
suspicious.
Carol responds:
Assuming that the marriage did take place, Eleanor's retreat to the chaste
and pious life of a vowess or Carmelite tertiary (see Ashdown-Hill for an
explanation of these terms) gives some indication of her feelings.
Obviously, we can't *know* her motives for remaining silent (again, assuming
that the marriage took place) any more than we know Richard's for taking the
crown, but we can speculate intelligently rather than attempting to block
discussion because of personal suspicion.
Meanwhile, the fact that Parliament publicly mentioned her name in Titulus
Regius when she still had living relatives who might have denied the claim
speaks volumes--as does the silence of Elizabeth Woodville and *her*
relatives on the matter.
As for "people it's claimed knew about it," your use of the passive voice
makes it impossible to know which people you're referring to. If you mean
me, read my first few paragraphs (and previous posts) again. As for
Warwick's countess, I never mentioned her at all.
If you mean John Ashdown-Hill, it would be best to read his book and his
arguments before attempting to refute them.
Anyway, Karen, please read other people's posts carefully. You seem to be
putting words into my mouth or making assumptions about my views that have
little or nothing to do with what I've actually said.
Carol
The most likely explanation for it is that no-one
> knew. In order to explain the silence of six people (including Eleanor and
> Stillington) , the explanations grow more and more complex and convoluted
> until we get to 'Eleanor wanted them to be silent' which is, frankly,
> unprovable.
>
> I've got to know Warwick quite well over the last few years and, in 1469/70,
> I really can't see him hesitating to use any knowledge he had of the
> precontract, or anything else that might cause Edward problems. Especially
> during the readeption, which he certainly didn't know was going to be
> temporary. Any prior come back on Eleanor could have been righted at that
> time.
Carol responds:
Just to reiterate, *I never said that Warwick knew about it*. I agree with
you that he would have used it as additional ammunition to attack Edward's
marriage though perhaps it didn't interest him as much as the possibility of
Edward IV's legitimacy since it was Edward IV's claim that he wished to
dispute (either to promote George's or, later, to back Henry VI and his son,
Warwick's son-in-law, Edward of Lancaster). It may be of interest that
Edward IV's eldest son, Edward, was not born until November 2, 1470, and
Warwick was killed at Barnet on April 14, 1471, only five and a half months
later. Until November 1470, Edward had only daughters. Even if he'd had a
son earlier on, I suspect that the son's legitimacy was of little interest
to Warwick. It was Edward IV that he wanted to depose.
As for George of Clarence, as I said, he would not have known of it, if at
all, until shortly before his execution on February 18, 1478--and *of
course* the publicly stated charges against him would not have included such
a dangerous secret.
At any rate, I'm not sure why you're presenting arguments that have nothing
to do with what I suggested, which is merely that Cecily--not Warwick or
Clarence--
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 01:46:36
Hilary said:
"c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
And
"I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
heirs."
Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
yet.
Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
actions, motives and reasons.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To:
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
And
"I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
heirs."
Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
yet.
Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
actions, motives and reasons.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To:
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 02:48:37
This is usually interpreted as sexual assault of one of Warwick's
daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye
uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." (Three Books of Polydor
Vergil's English History, Ellis (ed) p119).
The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E
of Warwickes house."
Stretching this to Eleanor Butler is problematic on three points: 1. She
could never be said to be part of the 'earles howse' and 2. Vergil was
writing far after the fact, after the precontract story broke and all its
consequences. 3. Eleanor was already a widow and hardly a candidate for
'deflowering".
I think this is a red herring.
Karen
On 27/01/13 6:15 AM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating
>at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick
>badly....Eileen
>On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
>> I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than
>>almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word
>>"bastard" figuratively.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: justcarol67
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> Karen Clark wrote:
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if
>>Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about
>>Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take
>>place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been
>>resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to
>>you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you
>>there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and
>>kept quiet.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John
>>Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye
uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." (Three Books of Polydor
Vergil's English History, Ellis (ed) p119).
The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E
of Warwickes house."
Stretching this to Eleanor Butler is problematic on three points: 1. She
could never be said to be part of the 'earles howse' and 2. Vergil was
writing far after the fact, after the precontract story broke and all its
consequences. 3. Eleanor was already a widow and hardly a candidate for
'deflowering".
I think this is a red herring.
Karen
On 27/01/13 6:15 AM, "eileen bates" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>If I recall... Dr Ashdown-Hill states that there were rumours circulating
>at the time that Edward had treated a lady relative of Warwick
>badly....Eileen
>On 26 Jan 2013, at 16:18, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
>> I would say that JA-H has forgotten more about the pre-contract than
>>almost anyone else knows. Furthermore, Cecily could have used the word
>>"bastard" figuratively.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: justcarol67
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Documentary
>>
>> Karen Clark wrote:
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> > I understood you were speculating. Speculating myself, I wonder if
>>Cecily would have kept quiet about it, given her strong feelings about
>>Edward's marriage. Assuming the marriage to Eleanor Butler did take
>>place, if anyone had spoken up, the situation re EW could have been
>>resolved, one way or another, very quickly. Like it makes no sense to
>>you that Cecily denounced Edward as illegitimate (and I agree with you
>>there) it makes no sense to me for her (or anyone) to have known and
>>kept quiet.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Unless it was Eleanor's own wish that they do so? Have you read John
>>Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen"? If not, I recommend it.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 03:21:08
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This is usually interpreted as sexual assault of one of Warwick's
> daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
> half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
[snip}
>
> I think this is a red herring.
Carol responds:
Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
Carol
>
> This is usually interpreted as sexual assault of one of Warwick's
> daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
> half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
[snip}
>
> I think this is a red herring.
Carol responds:
Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 03:32:37
Carol
Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:21:05 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This is usually interpreted as sexual assault of one of Warwick's
> daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
> half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
[snip}
>
> I think this is a red herring.
Carol responds:
Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
Carol
Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:21:05 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This is usually interpreted as sexual assault of one of Warwick's
> daughters, not anything to do with the daughter of Warwick's wife's
> half-sister. The story comes from Vergil:
[snip}
>
> I think this is a red herring.
Carol responds:
Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 06:41:44
As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
Re: Documentary/Marie
2013-01-27 10:27:20
Hi Well done Marie, come back soon.
Best Wishes
Christine
Best Wishes
Christine
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 10:35:59
John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 10:41:27
That's a very good explanation of what happened - albeit eccentrically phrased.
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
Hey, gang, just chillin', waitin' for Feb. 4. Thanks for your kind greetings!
Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
Hey, gang, just chillin', waitin' for Feb. 4. Thanks for your kind greetings!
Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 10:52:31
"And yes! Edward and
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended and objected.
The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible. Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again. Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary said:
"c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
And
"I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
heirs."
Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
yet.
Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
actions, motives and reasons.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
To: "
"
>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To:
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended and objected.
The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible. Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again. Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Hilary said:
"c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
And
"I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
heirs."
Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
yet.
Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
actions, motives and reasons.
Karen
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
enigma.
I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
wasn't known for holding back?)
b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
but George was always restless.
c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
under Edward, that's reasonable)
e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
George 'protected' him
The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
(If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
To: "
"
>
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
silence does not make sense.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
wrote:
> The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> something this potentially damaging to Edward.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> To:
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
>
> Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> interesting. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> >
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> surviving manifestos.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> >
> Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
>
> Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> >
> > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
to
> me.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 10:52:54
Yes - exactly right.
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
----- Original Message -----
From: P BARRETT
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 10:55:15
This is a very good question and I don't know the answer yet. Having said that, JA-H's "Eleanor" could not have been written ten years earlier as many of the facts have emerged recently.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
So, something I'd never thought about before. How well did Anne Neville know Eleanor Butler? I know Eleanor was quite a bit older so would they even have met, related or not? (I don't mean, by the way, that I think Eleanor would have told Anne about the marriage, I'm just curious)
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 9:09
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
So, something I'd never thought about before. How well did Anne Neville know Eleanor Butler? I know Eleanor was quite a bit older so would they even have met, related or not? (I don't mean, by the way, that I think Eleanor would have told Anne about the marriage, I'm just curious)
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 9:09
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but interesting. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Carol
The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
surviving manifestos.
Karen
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
>
> I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
me.
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 14:32:28
Thank you for that. It is vile that people speculate about Harry who Charles accepts completely and I for one admire Harry and feel that he and William are good for Britain
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone
-----Original Message-----
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
Sender:
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:01:29
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone
-----Original Message-----
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
Sender:
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:01:29
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up until
the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?<
Harry looks very like Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, and like her father when young. Which proves nothing.We who don't like the dead slandered should perhaps be careful of what we say about the living and the more recent dead.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 14:33:17
Karen said: Edward andElizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract.
Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract.
Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 14:44:32
Can you imagine living in a game of chess played on quicksand???? That is what life as a royal must have been. Throughout history there seems to be permanent intrigue.....within the "family", by those who could be, and then there were the rival countries who had envoy's and supporters.
I so admire all of you who obviously have spent great amounts of time researching the life and death of Richard III, and I am so happy to read all these nuggets. You have given me so many things to read, look over and ponder.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 8:33 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Karen said: Edward andElizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract.
Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
I so admire all of you who obviously have spent great amounts of time researching the life and death of Richard III, and I am so happy to read all these nuggets. You have given me so many things to read, look over and ponder.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 8:33 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Karen said: Edward andElizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
about the precontract.
Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 14:48:18
Poor Stillington...Bishop of Wells and not one tiny mention of him in Wells Cathedral as if he had never existed...his name even missed off from the list of Bishops hanging there...felt sad and cross when I saw that...but I digress...What I just wanted to say was that Stillington could keep his lips firmly sealed on the marriage between Eleanor and Edward..although who is to say he did not struggle with it...and who can blame him if he wanted to remain alive..but when Edward died..that was it...obviously that was one step to far for this man for a bastard to take the throne of England.
I cannot remember where I read it...damn...but its possible that Stillington told George which I found very interesting...Does anyone know if and how Stillington and George would have been linked? Anyway as we all know how it panned out...with Richard dead and HT sitting on the throne...Stillington's days of freedom (and his life were numbered). I think HT's treatment of Stillington speaks volumes...Eileen
On 27 Jan 2013, at 10:41, Stephen Lark wrote:
> That's a very good explanation of what happened - albeit eccentrically phrased.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
> Hey, gang, just chillin', waitin' for Feb. 4. Thanks for your kind greetings!
>
> Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
>
> From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
>
> I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
>
> I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
>
> Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
>
> There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
>
> The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
>
> What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
>
> From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
>
> I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
>
> Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > >
> > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > >
> > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > >
> > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
>
>
>
I cannot remember where I read it...damn...but its possible that Stillington told George which I found very interesting...Does anyone know if and how Stillington and George would have been linked? Anyway as we all know how it panned out...with Richard dead and HT sitting on the throne...Stillington's days of freedom (and his life were numbered). I think HT's treatment of Stillington speaks volumes...Eileen
On 27 Jan 2013, at 10:41, Stephen Lark wrote:
> That's a very good explanation of what happened - albeit eccentrically phrased.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
> Hey, gang, just chillin', waitin' for Feb. 4. Thanks for your kind greetings!
>
> Oy, the precontract. I have never seen, like, a hugely detailed discussion of the notion of the precontract, possibly because I'm cheap and won't buy reprints of ancient canon lawbooks and possibly because even the experts tend to say, "Believe us, this is all very complicated and you'd be happier taking up pinochle instead."
>
> From what I gather, however, it was such a complicated piece of church law relating to marriages and contracts (and both, come to think of it) that even clerical authorities of note weren't quite certain how the hell it all fit together. It could be that the reason no one seems to have used Edward's multiple-marryin' ways against him is that nobody really knew he'd committed anything like a sin or a crime (or both). If that's the case, then it would make sense that Stillington (bein' all bishoppy) would be the person to let stakeholders know about it: he might have been one of a handful of people in the breadth n' depth of England who realized that something had gone fatally wrong with the succession.
>
> I get the impression, from discussions of the matter, that once Eddie cast his eye upon the fair lady Eleanor and made some kind of promise of questionable sincerity to see how she decorated her bedchamber, he was pretty much committed for life in the eyes of the Church, no backsies, no foolin'. The Church apparently took this with vast and impressive seriousness, and no amount of "But I'm the King, damn it!" would have gotten him out of it.
>
> I gather that the sin, moreover, was permanent: NOTHING Edward did after the fact would have had the slightest effect in mitigating the regal insufficiency of any children he might have with any woman who was not the lovely Butler. Even if he had been able to legitimize the children he had with Elizabeth Woodville, they would have been specifically excluded from the succession.
>
> Now, during Eddie's lifetime, this is distasteful, but not particularly regime-threatening. When it becomes utterly crucial is when Eddie kicks it and his sons are going to take the throne. To me, the validity of the story Stillington told is boosted by the fact that he revealed it just when it would have been most relevant. The Bish could keep his mouth shut with Edward IV on the throne--no fool he, in a country stuffed with Woodvilles--but I can see him buttonholing one after the other of the Protector's allies immediately after the death of Edward IV, trying to get an audience with someone who could get him to Richard.
>
> There's no extant evidence of when Stillington and Richard finally met to discuss this. I can't think of this kind of news going through an intermediary. I can also see the kind of shock this would have presented, and Richard's decision, as a loyal son of the Church, to pursue the implications of Stillington's revelation as far as they went. Whatever was said when by whomever to whomever, it was convincing enough that the entire mechanism of the government moved immediately to change the succession and inform the populace as to why it was happening.
>
> The government took the exceptional step of issuing Titulus Regius and confirming its precepts in session the next spring in Parliament. The clerical authorities supported a number of public announcements explaining the point(s) of canon law involved. (It was a good idea: even the carefully-crafted speeches in London in 1483 left some people with the impression that the claim was that Edward IV, not Edward V, was illegitimate, and in a church-saturated culture like that of the time, that's an indication of just how obscure the legal arguments were.) They made notable efforts to assure everyone that this was a course of action taken by unanimous consent of secular and religious authorities. In other words, this just don't sniff like some shady power grab; it seems to me as though this really was a profound governmental crisis that arose in a potentially explosive environment and was handled with tact, delicacy, and dispatch.
>
> What we don't have is complete documentation, which is both a shame for historical reconstructionists and kind of understandable: who wants to sit in a room while a scribe is taking detailed notes about how the just-departed King of England got into a succession of petticoats by trading away the nation's right to effective governance? I'd-a been squirmin' too.
>
> From my reading of the topic, it just looks as though everyone involved took a serious, committed look at the matter and decided that the choices funneled right down to taking the crown from Edward-the-never-to-be-V and granting it to the Lord Protector. There just really doesn't seem to have been much of an option. I get the impression that non-partisan officials were all kind of, "Geez, this guy's a terrific warrior and a capable administrator, and it's not like he planned for this to happen. Can't we all just give him a chance?"
>
> I can imagine, on an unrelated topic, that this caused Richard's heart to flood with compassion toward his regally nobody nephews. My personal theory is he sent 'em on the down-low to live with Aunt Maggie on the Continent.
>
> Anyway, the topic of the precontract, its effects, and its consequences is complex, and events went so fast and left so few traces that scholars could spend (and have spent) years unraveling the likely timeline and its implications.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > >
> > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > >
> > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > >
> > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 14:53:23
Oh to have been a fly on the wall of the chamber when EW found out the truth.....Wheeew...One can almost feel sorry for Edward...only almost though...Eileen
On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:33, liz williams wrote:
> Karen said: Edward andElizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract.
>
>
> Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
>
> I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
>
>
>
>
On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:33, liz williams wrote:
> Karen said: Edward andElizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract.
>
>
> Liz replied: I believe that Elizabeth probably knew nothing abouit Edward's marriage to Eleanor and thought she was legitimately married - and that her sons were legitimate. Edward, being Edward, probably thought no one would ever find out. Eleanor was dead and had made no attempt - for whatever reason - to claim her rightful place as his Queen either before or after he "married" EW. He obviously knew that anyone else (Stillngton for example) would keep their mouths shut. So, why rock the boat? Can you imagine EW's rage if he turned to her one day and said "oh by the way darling, I forgot to tell you ...".
>
> I don't want to sound like a misandrist but in my experience and that of friends, there are quite a few men who will not face an unpleasant relationship issue and just hope that it will go away. I think it's something some men would do because they thought it wouldn't come out and wouldn't want to face the consequences (with the wife) if they confessed.
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 14:56:50
Some time ago someone posted about Edward and EW enjoying a family life with their beautiful children...playing games and dancing etc., I immediately thought...yes...but it was all built on sand....Eileen
On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:44, Pamela Bain wrote:
> Can you imagine living in a game of chess played on quicksand????
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:44, Pamela Bain wrote:
> Can you imagine living in a game of chess played on quicksand????
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 15:26:12
Oh Okay.
He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > >
> > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > >
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > surviving manifestos.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > >
> > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > >
> > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > >
> > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > >
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > surviving manifestos.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > >
> > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > >
> > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 16:47:26
Ishita...this article by Dr Anne Sutton taken from the Society website will prove helpful to you and it also explains why EW and Edward could not marry even after the death of ET....
http://www.richardiii.net/
Eileen
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Oh Okay.
> He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > >
> > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > >
> > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > >
> > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > >
> > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > >
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > >
> > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > >
> > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
http://www.richardiii.net/
Eileen
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Oh Okay.
> He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > >
> > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > >
> > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > >
> > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > >
> > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > >
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > >
> > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > >
> > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 16:52:05
Carol earlier:
>
> Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
>
Karen Clark responded:
> Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know.
Carol again:
Possibly he felt compelled to include it for the sake of completeness? No detail left unmentioned even if it has to be distorted to fit the Tudor version of events? If so, he certainly couldn't have mentioned Eleanor Butler by name, which would have called the precontract story to public attention. (Assuming that he knew her name--he wouldn't have had access to Titulus Regius.)
Carol
>
> Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
>
Karen Clark responded:
> Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know.
Carol again:
Possibly he felt compelled to include it for the sake of completeness? No detail left unmentioned even if it has to be distorted to fit the Tudor version of events? If so, he certainly couldn't have mentioned Eleanor Butler by name, which would have called the precontract story to public attention. (Assuming that he knew her name--he wouldn't have had access to Titulus Regius.)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 16:52:20
Sorry...that did not work. Please go the the Richard ll Society website. On the left you will find a list...click on the one at the top "Richard"...this will take you to another list. Click on "The Controversy"...and then click on "The Pre-Contract"...This is a very helpful article. I was looking for one by Marie...but I must have read that in The Bulletin...Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...this article by Dr Anne Sutton taken from the Society website will prove helpful to you and it also explains why EW and Edward could not marry even after the death of ET....
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Oh Okay.
> > He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > > >
> > > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > > >
> > > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > > >
> > > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ishita...this article by Dr Anne Sutton taken from the Society website will prove helpful to you and it also explains why EW and Edward could not marry even after the death of ET....
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Oh Okay.
> > He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > > >
> > > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > > >
> > > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > > >
> > > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 16:59:25
P BARRETT wrote:
>
> As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
>
Carol responds:
Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
Carol
>
> As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
>
Carol responds:
Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 17:27:59
Awesome! Thank you, Eileen!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 11:47 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Ishita...this article by Dr Anne Sutton taken from the Society website will prove helpful to you and it also explains why EW and Edward could not marry even after the death of ET....
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Oh Okay.
> > He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > > >
> > > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > > >
> > > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > > >
> > > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (140)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 4
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to:
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 11:47 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Ishita...this article by Dr Anne Sutton taken from the Society website will prove helpful to you and it also explains why EW and Edward could not marry even after the death of ET....
> http://www.richardiii.net/
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Oh Okay.
> > He couldn't " remarry" EW after EB died?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > > John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would disqualify him from marrying EW properly.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Why couldn't he marry his mistress? John of Gaunt did. And got Richard killed:/
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > After Eleanor's death (which WAS in 1468), Edward would be free to marry again because EW was not a legal wife. However, because of the bigamy and because their ceremony was also secret, EW had been his mistress and he could never marry her. (JA-H, Carson)
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:05 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son - George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an enigma.
> > > >
> > > > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> > > >
> > > > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she wasn't known for holding back?)
> > > > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest) but George was always restless.
> > > > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin. Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > > > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > > > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so George 'protected' him
> > > > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > > > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs. Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> > > >
> > > > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > > > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> > > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's silence does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > > > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > > > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > > > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > > > surviving manifestos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > > > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense to
> > > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (140)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 4
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to:
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 17:44:25
I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can
make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:52:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
>
> Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
>
Karen Clark responded:
> Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be
left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know.
Carol again:
Possibly he felt compelled to include it for the sake of completeness? No
detail left unmentioned even if it has to be distorted to fit the Tudor
version of events? If so, he certainly couldn't have mentioned Eleanor
Butler by name, which would have called the precontract story to public
attention. (Assuming that he knew her name--he wouldn't have had access to
Titulus Regius.)
Carol
make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:52:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
>
> Or, considering the source, deliberate misdirection.
>
Karen Clark responded:
> Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be
left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know.
Carol again:
Possibly he felt compelled to include it for the sake of completeness? No
detail left unmentioned even if it has to be distorted to fit the Tudor
version of events? If so, he certainly couldn't have mentioned Eleanor
Butler by name, which would have called the precontract story to public
attention. (Assuming that he knew her name--he wouldn't have had access to
Titulus Regius.)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 18:00:36
Karen Clark wrote:
"Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know."
Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when
"Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had
been suppressed? Since too many people knew that SOMEONE had been named in
Titulus Regius as the reason Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't
legal, Elizabeth Lucy was dragged in as a substitute for Eleanor Butler in
order to "show" that, since Edward was obviously never married to Elizabeth
Lucy, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville WAS legitimate.
In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for
Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's
position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report
what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of
what DID occur.
Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Doug
"Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know."
Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when
"Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had
been suppressed? Since too many people knew that SOMEONE had been named in
Titulus Regius as the reason Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't
legal, Elizabeth Lucy was dragged in as a substitute for Eleanor Butler in
order to "show" that, since Edward was obviously never married to Elizabeth
Lucy, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville WAS legitimate.
In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for
Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's
position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report
what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of
what DID occur.
Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Doug
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 18:03:24
Eileen wrote:
>[snip[
> I cannot remember where I read it...damn...but its possible that Stillington told George which I found very interesting...Does anyone know if and how Stillington and George would have been linked? Anyway as we all know how it panned out...with Richard dead and HT sitting on the throne...Stillington's days of freedom (and his life were numbered). I think HT's treatment of Stillington speaks volumes...Eileen
Carol responds:
You may be thinking of Paul Murray Kendall's discussion of the matter. He points out that Stillington was imprisoned in the Tower for having "uttered words prejudicial to the King and his state" (Kendall's paraphrase) about three weeks after George's execution (February 18, 1478). According to Kendall, Stillington had been closely associated with Clarence since 1470. Kendall suggests that he had secretly pleaded with George to return to his family allegiance while Edward and Richard were exiled in Burgundy, which certainly suggests that he didn't tell George about the Eleanor Butler marriage at that time (after all, it didn't affect Edward's right to the crown, only that of his children). According to Kendall, Stillington resumed this close relationship with George after Edward dismissed him from the chancellorship in 1475. Kendall states outright that Stillington "had probably let slip to Clarence the secret of the precontract" and speculates that Clarence "babbled" his secret to others, including a Woodville adherent--which blunder assured a death sentence for poor George (259-60).
Kendall's notes 14 and 15 (pp. 554-555, which apply to the precontract itself as well as to Stillington, are particularly revealing but too long to quote here. If you don't own the book, you can read the relevant pages online at Google Books. (Fortunately, all of them are available in the sample. Just do a search for Stillington and you'll find them.)
Carol
>[snip[
> I cannot remember where I read it...damn...but its possible that Stillington told George which I found very interesting...Does anyone know if and how Stillington and George would have been linked? Anyway as we all know how it panned out...with Richard dead and HT sitting on the throne...Stillington's days of freedom (and his life were numbered). I think HT's treatment of Stillington speaks volumes...Eileen
Carol responds:
You may be thinking of Paul Murray Kendall's discussion of the matter. He points out that Stillington was imprisoned in the Tower for having "uttered words prejudicial to the King and his state" (Kendall's paraphrase) about three weeks after George's execution (February 18, 1478). According to Kendall, Stillington had been closely associated with Clarence since 1470. Kendall suggests that he had secretly pleaded with George to return to his family allegiance while Edward and Richard were exiled in Burgundy, which certainly suggests that he didn't tell George about the Eleanor Butler marriage at that time (after all, it didn't affect Edward's right to the crown, only that of his children). According to Kendall, Stillington resumed this close relationship with George after Edward dismissed him from the chancellorship in 1475. Kendall states outright that Stillington "had probably let slip to Clarence the secret of the precontract" and speculates that Clarence "babbled" his secret to others, including a Woodville adherent--which blunder assured a death sentence for poor George (259-60).
Kendall's notes 14 and 15 (pp. 554-555, which apply to the precontract itself as well as to Stillington, are particularly revealing but too long to quote here. If you don't own the book, you can read the relevant pages online at Google Books. (Fortunately, all of them are available in the sample. Just do a search for Stillington and you'll find them.)
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 18:11:56
Yes, quite so, thanks for pointing up the distinction, Carol. In this instance, "precontract" has the sense of "previous impediment to entering into a marriage" or "preexisting preclusive condition". The impediment happened to be a marriage. I recall reading somewhere (but good luck remembering exactly where) that, at the point at which Edward's and Elizabeth's children were born, they were automatically illegitimate in the view of the Church and that there would never be a way to change that status, even after the death of Edward IV's first wife.
Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
>
> Carol
>
Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 18:16:39
Where are you?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:12 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
Yes, quite so, thanks for pointing up the distinction, Carol. In this instance, "precontract" has the sense of "previous impediment to entering into a marriage" or "preexisting preclusive condition". The impediment happened to be a marriage. I recall reading somewhere (but good luck remembering exactly where) that, at the point at which Edward's and Elizabeth's children were born, they were automatically illegitimate in the view of the Church and that there would never be a way to change that status, even after the death of Edward IV's first wife.
Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
>
> Carol
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:12 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
Yes, quite so, thanks for pointing up the distinction, Carol. In this instance, "precontract" has the sense of "previous impediment to entering into a marriage" or "preexisting preclusive condition". The impediment happened to be a marriage. I recall reading somewhere (but good luck remembering exactly where) that, at the point at which Edward's and Elizabeth's children were born, they were automatically illegitimate in the view of the Church and that there would never be a way to change that status, even after the death of Edward IV's first wife.
Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> P BARRETT wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 18:19:04
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 18:25:22
Yes...could this have been the very thing that finally made Edward sign his brother's death warrant? Was he just too dangerous to let him live? Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. What would their mother have made of it all.....
Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
Eileen
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
>
> Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
>
> As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
>
> A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > P BARRETT wrote:
> > >
> > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
Eileen
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
>
> Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
>
> As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
>
> A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > P BARRETT wrote:
> > >
> > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 18:32:19
Doug said:
"Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any
information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his
bridges."
That, as I've said several times, is the clincher for me that Warwick not
only knew nothing about it, but suspected nothing.
Karen
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:01:45 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
"Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know."
Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when
"Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had
been suppressed? Since too many people knew that SOMEONE had been named in
Titulus Regius as the reason Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't
legal, Elizabeth Lucy was dragged in as a substitute for Eleanor Butler in
order to "show" that, since Edward was obviously never married to Elizabeth
Lucy, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville WAS legitimate.
In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for
Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's
position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report
what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of
what DID occur.
Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Doug
"Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any
information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his
bridges."
That, as I've said several times, is the clincher for me that Warwick not
only knew nothing about it, but suspected nothing.
Karen
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:01:45 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
"Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor,
why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply
be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I
know."
Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when
"Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had
been suppressed? Since too many people knew that SOMEONE had been named in
Titulus Regius as the reason Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't
legal, Elizabeth Lucy was dragged in as a substitute for Eleanor Butler in
order to "show" that, since Edward was obviously never married to Elizabeth
Lucy, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville WAS legitimate.
In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for
Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's
position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report
what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of
what DID occur.
Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information
he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had
joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 18:36:48
I wonder if Edward grasped 'medieval canon law .and his inability to later make EW his lawful wife. Then again...why did he 'marry' EW in secret? Of course it may have been because he would have known all the fuss it would have caused, EW being unsuitable and not wanting to face the wrath of Warwick at that juncture who was busily trying to arrange the French match. Oh what a dodgy web we weave when we practice to deceive....or words to that effect...Eileen
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
>
> So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> why it was secret?
> And, thus, no "second chances"?
> Doug
>
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
>
> So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> why it was secret?
> And, thus, no "second chances"?
> Doug
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 18:58:27
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 19:05:49
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 19:12:39
"O what a TANGLED web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
Edward tried to bluff it out - had he lived longer, Stillington may have died before him (1491if I recall, by when Edward would have been under fifty) and he would have succeeded.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
I wonder if Edward grasped 'medieval canon law .and his inability to later make EW his lawful wife. Then again...why did he 'marry' EW in secret? Of course it may have been because he would have known all the fuss it would have caused, EW being unsuitable and not wanting to face the wrath of Warwick at that juncture who was busily trying to arrange the French match. Oh what a dodgy web we weave when we practice to deceive....or words to that effect...Eileen
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
>
> So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> why it was secret?
> And, thus, no "second chances"?
> Doug
>
Edward tried to bluff it out - had he lived longer, Stillington may have died before him (1491if I recall, by when Edward would have been under fifty) and he would have succeeded.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
I wonder if Edward grasped 'medieval canon law .and his inability to later make EW his lawful wife. Then again...why did he 'marry' EW in secret? Of course it may have been because he would have known all the fuss it would have caused, EW being unsuitable and not wanting to face the wrath of Warwick at that juncture who was busily trying to arrange the French match. Oh what a dodgy web we weave when we practice to deceive....or words to that effect...Eileen
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
>
> So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> why it was secret?
> And, thus, no "second chances"?
> Doug
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 19:37:24
Eileen wrote
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. "
Ishita
And then to get blamed for that very same deed..... The man could not catch a break!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Yes...could this have been the very thing that finally made Edward sign his brother's death warrant? Was he just too dangerous to let him live? Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. What would their mother have made of it all.....
>
> Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
> >
> > As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
> >
> > A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. "
Ishita
And then to get blamed for that very same deed..... The man could not catch a break!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Yes...could this have been the very thing that finally made Edward sign his brother's death warrant? Was he just too dangerous to let him live? Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. What would their mother have made of it all.....
>
> Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
> >
> > As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
> >
> > A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 19:47:38
Quite possibly - the mistress could be married if a man was influentual enough to secure a dispensation, or (later) if he fired the Pope and issued his own.
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 19:48:40
Tangled.!...it was on the tip of my tongue :0) ..tangled.. dodgy...I guess whatever way you slice the cake it was a total mess...with catastrophic results for his sons, brother and the Plantagenet dynasty...Even his wife...even though her daughter married the new king. And what a result for the Tudors...I have one word for Edward and I cannot possibly say it on here...being as I am a lady and all that :0) Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "O what a TANGLED web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
>
> Edward tried to bluff it out - had he lived longer, Stillington may have died before him (1491if I recall, by when Edward would have been under fifty) and he would have succeeded.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I wonder if Edward grasped 'medieval canon law .and his inability to later make EW his lawful wife. Then again...why did he 'marry' EW in secret? Of course it may have been because he would have known all the fuss it would have caused, EW being unsuitable and not wanting to face the wrath of Warwick at that juncture who was busily trying to arrange the French match. Oh what a dodgy web we weave when we practice to deceive....or words to that effect...Eileen
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> > other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> > disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
> >
> > So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> > married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> > marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> > Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> > having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> > "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> > other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> > secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> > why it was secret?
> > And, thus, no "second chances"?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "O what a TANGLED web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
>
> Edward tried to bluff it out - had he lived longer, Stillington may have died before him (1491if I recall, by when Edward would have been under fifty) and he would have succeeded.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> I wonder if Edward grasped 'medieval canon law .and his inability to later make EW his lawful wife. Then again...why did he 'marry' EW in secret? Of course it may have been because he would have known all the fuss it would have caused, EW being unsuitable and not wanting to face the wrath of Warwick at that juncture who was busily trying to arrange the French match. Oh what a dodgy web we weave when we practice to deceive....or words to that effect...Eileen
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > "John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
> > other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
> > disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
> >
> > So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
> > married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
> > marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
> > Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by not
> > having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
> > "No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
> > other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
> > secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which was
> > why it was secret?
> > And, thus, no "second chances"?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 19:54:15
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion, which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr. Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident (though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my suggestions out of hand.
Carol
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion, which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr. Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident (though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my suggestions out of hand.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 20:25:41
You quoted the phrase "house of Warwick". Could this mean his extended family and not just his residence? After all, royal families are routinely referred to as the "House of xyz".
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion, which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr. Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident (though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my suggestions out of hand.
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion, which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr. Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident (though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my suggestions out of hand.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 20:31:36
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> "Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know."
Doug responded:
> Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when "Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had been suppressed? [snip]
> In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of what DID occur.
> Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Carol responds:
I think that you were on target at first. Vergil is suppressing or misdirecting information about the precontract (or just repeating a rumor and not making the connection with the precontract, as I suggested elsewhere). Warwick need not have known anything about the precontract--the rumor merely names the lady, perhaps mistakenly, as a member of his household. Here's the passage in question, which Karen quoted earlier:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." <snip source>
[Karen's comment:] The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E of Warwickes house."
So the whole incident has nothing to do with the Earl of Warwick's knowing about the precontract and failing to use it against Edward. It has to do with Edward's wronging a woman associated with Warwick. The idea that it involved the deflowering of some woman *in the Earl of Warwick's house* (or of his household or blood) is unlikely in the extreme, Edward having too strong a sense of self-preservation to outrage his already disenchanted cousin in that way. But "soome unhonest act" involving a woman related or connected to Warwick is sufficiently vague to refer to Eleanor Butler and the precontract.
As I said in another post, the rumor (still surviving into the 1530s) need not have arisen at the time of the precontract (when Warwick could have used it against Edward--though he was much more interested in casting doubt on Edward's own claim than on that of the son born only a few months before Warwick's death). Word of Edward's "unhonest action" would more likely have leaked out at the time of Titulus Regius. As I've already shown, Vergil could not have been unaware of the rumors of the precontract despite the suppression of Titulus Regius though he may not have known the lady's name--or her connection with Warwick.
Carol
>
> "Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know."
Doug responded:
> Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when "Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had been suppressed? [snip]
> In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of what DID occur.
> Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
Carol responds:
I think that you were on target at first. Vergil is suppressing or misdirecting information about the precontract (or just repeating a rumor and not making the connection with the precontract, as I suggested elsewhere). Warwick need not have known anything about the precontract--the rumor merely names the lady, perhaps mistakenly, as a member of his household. Here's the passage in question, which Karen quoted earlier:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." <snip source>
[Karen's comment:] The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E of Warwickes house."
So the whole incident has nothing to do with the Earl of Warwick's knowing about the precontract and failing to use it against Edward. It has to do with Edward's wronging a woman associated with Warwick. The idea that it involved the deflowering of some woman *in the Earl of Warwick's house* (or of his household or blood) is unlikely in the extreme, Edward having too strong a sense of self-preservation to outrage his already disenchanted cousin in that way. But "soome unhonest act" involving a woman related or connected to Warwick is sufficiently vague to refer to Eleanor Butler and the precontract.
As I said in another post, the rumor (still surviving into the 1530s) need not have arisen at the time of the precontract (when Warwick could have used it against Edward--though he was much more interested in casting doubt on Edward's own claim than on that of the son born only a few months before Warwick's death). Word of Edward's "unhonest action" would more likely have leaked out at the time of Titulus Regius. As I've already shown, Vergil could not have been unaware of the rumors of the precontract despite the suppression of Titulus Regius though he may not have known the lady's name--or her connection with Warwick.
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-27 20:31:50
Really, he does seem cursed by fate.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Eileen wrote
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. "
Ishita
And then to get blamed for that very same deed..... The man could not catch a break!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> Yes...could this have been the very thing that finally made Edward sign his brother's death warrant? Was he just too dangerous to let him live? Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. What would their mother have made of it all.....
>
> Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
> >
> > As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
> >
> > A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Eileen wrote
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. "
Ishita
And then to get blamed for that very same deed..... The man could not catch a break!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> Yes...could this have been the very thing that finally made Edward sign his brother's death warrant? Was he just too dangerous to let him live? Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret. What would their mother have made of it all.....
>
> Yes...More truely muddied the waters by throwing Elizabeth Lucy into the equation. And this remained the case for a very long time. Everyone knew EL was a harlot. When I first read Eleanor the Secret Queen I was taken aback by how well born Eleanor was and her close family link to the Kingmaker.. her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk to whom she was very close...mother to Anne Mowbray...After reading the book I believe it is a strong probability that the Duchess of Norfolk knew her sister's secret. We have to remember how religious Eleanor was....Perhaps she felt shame that she had allowed Edward to trick her into bed...and thus preferred it that her secret remained a secret. Who knows...all has been lost in the mists of time...again. She might even have felt that her life was in danger.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Eileen, you're correct that one of the speculations about the precontract is that Stillington let George, Duke of Clarence know about it. As I recall (rather vaguely, it must be said), George was either imprisoned or executed in conjunction with Stillington's imprisonment, and some historians have speculated that George was sanctioned for treasonous rumormongering and Stillington slapped into the clapper to teach him to keep his damn mouth shut.
> >
> > As far as misdirection surrounding this whole thing... you 'member More saying it was a lie that Edward IV was precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy, one of the more gossiped-about women in court, rather than Elizabeth Butler, whose reputation was of sobriety and grownup behavior? Up until the moment More specifically denied that Eddie had married Elizabeth Lucy in secret, probably nobody in the entire English court would have ever heard such a rumor. But it gave the denial plausibility... and that whole business of throwing one more gram of doubt on the scale was the type of subtle, poisonous counterargument that the rhetoric of the age made a specialty.
> >
> > A week and a day, y'all! The press conference starts at 4:00 a.m. my time. Will I be up early? You bet!
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > P BARRETT wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it a betrothal/promise to marry/ pre-contract became a valid and insoluble marriage when it was consummated. Which is why child betrothals etc could be broken
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Not quite. What you're saying is true of betrothals (troth plights), IIRC, but a precontract is not a betrothal. That's the misunderstanding we keep encountering, but as I said in the message to which I think you're responding, a precontract was a previously contracted marriage. If Marie were here, she could comment on her earlier post. She's done a lot of research on the topic. Since she isn't, I can only suggest reading John Ashdown-Hill's book, "Eleanor: The Secret Queen." Someone else mentioned another source on the topic, but I can't recall it since she(?) gave only the author's last name.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 20:39:01
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
[snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
Carol responds:
I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
Carol
>
> Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
[snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
Carol responds:
I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 20:55:57
Carol earlier:
>
> Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
>
Carol aganin:
Henry VIII, not Henry VII. Sorry!
Carol
>
> Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
>
Carol aganin:
Henry VIII, not Henry VII. Sorry!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 21:36:46
Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 21:37:22
Correction vii
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:36 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
>
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:36 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
>
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 21:38:21
Correct the correction thanks to spell check!!!
Henry 8
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:37 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> Correction vii
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:36 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
> >
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> > George
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Henry 8
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:37 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> Correction vii
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:36 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
> >
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> > George
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 21:53:48
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
Lord Acton, I think.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
Lord Acton, I think.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 22:15:04
For all the good it did him, since the Tudors died with Liz I!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
>
> [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 22:15:37
Thank you Stephen I stand corrected
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
>
> Lord Acton, I think.
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
>
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
>
> Lord Acton, I think.
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
>
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> >
> > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-27 23:05:38
Hi all,
I came back to 116 posts so do please forgive me if I've missed something. Our man must be popular!!
I had this horrible feeling I'd poke a tiger when I mentioned the pre-contract.
At a very quick read I'd say (as a pre-contract believer and I realise that changes everything Karen) :
I'm with Liz and don't think EW knew and E was a coward. As JAH says, E was good at buying off people, even at the highest levels. He was a 'lucky' man. It would really seem that he'd got away with it until Clarence probably got to know something via Stillington. EW is not the sort of person you'd say you'd have to divorce, remarry, whatever - real black eyes there.
Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
I personally don't think Richard would have taken the throne had he not been convinced that his nephews were illegitmate. It doesn't square with the man. The rest, as I said, I really don't know. Hilary
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Thank you Stephen I stand corrected
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> >
> > Lord Acton, I think.
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: George Butterfield
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
> >
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> > George
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I came back to 116 posts so do please forgive me if I've missed something. Our man must be popular!!
I had this horrible feeling I'd poke a tiger when I mentioned the pre-contract.
At a very quick read I'd say (as a pre-contract believer and I realise that changes everything Karen) :
I'm with Liz and don't think EW knew and E was a coward. As JAH says, E was good at buying off people, even at the highest levels. He was a 'lucky' man. It would really seem that he'd got away with it until Clarence probably got to know something via Stillington. EW is not the sort of person you'd say you'd have to divorce, remarry, whatever - real black eyes there.
Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
I personally don't think Richard would have taken the throne had he not been convinced that his nephews were illegitmate. It doesn't square with the man. The rest, as I said, I really don't know. Hilary
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Thank you Stephen I stand corrected
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> >
> > Lord Acton, I think.
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: George Butterfield
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Trust Henry vii to find/make a loophole ........just execute ones that you don't want and form a new religion with you as head.
> >
> > "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> > George
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2013, at 3:38 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated them as Beauforts.
> > >
> > > [snip paragraph on Edward, which I agree with]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I thought it was Richard II who legitimated his cousins (giving them the Norman-sounding name Beaufort} and their half-brother Henry IV who barred them from the succession.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 00:01:45
Hilary wrote:
[snip]
>
> Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
Carol responds:
Leslau! That's the name I couldn't remember. Hilary, can you tell me the author's full name and the title of the article or book? It does sound fanciful, but I'm curious.
Carol
[snip]
>
> Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
Carol responds:
Leslau! That's the name I couldn't remember. Hilary, can you tell me the author's full name and the title of the article or book? It does sound fanciful, but I'm curious.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 02:43:39
Carol
"I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my
suggestions out of hand."
Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed
connection between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the
specific purpose of disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have
cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we
can do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman
referred to is Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not. In order to make
this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and pummelled until
almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and 'woman'.
This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as
you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is
personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards
you and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you
on some things or not.
You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor
Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant
reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract; and 2. Eleanor
Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an unmarried virgin, I
think the lady is not likely to be her.
Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no
argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so
far as I know, doesn't mention it.
You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the
wronged lady"
Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the
precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:54:14 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can
make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection
rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion,
which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could
hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew
her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake
of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using
gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses
all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr.
Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to
Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an
alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard
the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's
house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's
quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint
whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of
the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm
not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person
who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor
Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles
via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to
Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was
published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a
seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the
rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward
Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In
fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than
being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret
marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have
circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that
even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident
(though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted
despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew
about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry
VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was
declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had
espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's
note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for
whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to
make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by
marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady
was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than
any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my
suggestions out of hand.
Carol
"I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my
suggestions out of hand."
Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed
connection between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the
specific purpose of disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have
cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we
can do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman
referred to is Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not. In order to make
this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and pummelled until
almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and 'woman'.
This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as
you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is
personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards
you and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you
on some things or not.
You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor
Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant
reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract; and 2. Eleanor
Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an unmarried virgin, I
think the lady is not likely to be her.
Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no
argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so
far as I know, doesn't mention it.
You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the
wronged lady"
Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the
precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:54:14 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I just don't see any sense in that, Carol. If we use that reasoning, we can
make anything anyone ever wrote fit whatever we want it to fit.
Carol responds:
You asked me for a reason why Vergil might deliberately provide misdirection
rather than leaving out the incident altogether. I provided a suggestion,
which you now reject. Can you think of a better one? As I said, he could
hardly state that Edward had secretly married Eleanor Butler even if he knew
her name, but he may have felt compelled to include the story for the sake
of completeness or, if you prefer, human interest. He is not above using
gossip or rumor as a "source," as I'm sure you're aware. He also suppresses
all reference to the precontract. For example, he labels the idea that Dr.
Shaa in his sermon at Paul's Cross declared Edward's children (as opposed to
Edward himself) as bastards as "common report . . . devoid of all truth," an
alteration of the facts to fit the Tudor agenda.
To return to the story in question, here's what Kendall says in his "Richard
the Third": "The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's
house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's
quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint
whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of
the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." I'm
not necessarily agreeing with Kendall, merely citing him as another person
who suspects that the "red herring," as you called it, relates to Eleanor
Butler. (He may have been unaware of Eleanor's relationship to the Nevilles
via the Countess of Warwick, which might better explain the connection to
Warwick in the rumor.)
Another point--this rumor persisted into the 1530s (the Historica Anglia was
published in 1534), so it was something more than another story of a
seduction by the amorous king. However, there is no suggestion in either the
rumor as reported or in historical documents that he made advances toward
Warwick's daughters or wife (a mistake that Edward would not have made. In
fact, he had rejected George's request to marry one of them). Rather than
being, as Kendall suggests, a rumor that began at the time of the secret
marriage (assuming it to be real), the story could more likely have
circulated at the time that Titulus Regius was written. Considering that
even Commynes (who had never been to England) knew about the incident
(though he didn't know the lady's name), the rumors certainly persisted
despite the burning of Titulus Regius.
Most interestingly, Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, knew
about the precontract, telling Charles that he had a better claim than Henry
VII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was
declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had
espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's
note, p. 555). And Chapuys is writing twenty years after Vergil.
So Vergil is suppressing all evidence of the contract, but he wants for
whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady. Either he fails to
make the connection, not knowing Lady Eleanor's name or her relationship by
marriage to Warwick, or he suppresses the information that the wronged lady
was not seduced but married to Edward in keeping with Tudor policy.
Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than
any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage.
I'd appreciate it if you would cite some sources rather than dismissing my
suggestions out of hand.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 02:45:24
Stephen
I find the Gloucesters very interesting, but don't have the time (at the
moment) to digress into their lives.
You said: "the mistress could be married if a man was influentual enough to
secure a dispensation"
Which leaves the door open, a little, for Edward going this way if he chose,
doesn't it?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:47:22 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite possibly - the mistress could be married if a man was influentual
enough to secure a dispensation, or (later) if he fired the Pope and issued
his own.
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
I find the Gloucesters very interesting, but don't have the time (at the
moment) to digress into their lives.
You said: "the mistress could be married if a man was influentual enough to
secure a dispensation"
Which leaves the door open, a little, for Edward going this way if he chose,
doesn't it?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:47:22 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite possibly - the mistress could be married if a man was influentual
enough to secure a dispensation, or (later) if he fired the Pope and issued
his own.
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >
Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 02:46:39
Stephen
Eleanor Butler wasn't 'of the house' of Warwick, whichever interpretation is
given.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:25:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
You quoted the phrase "house of Warwick". Could this mean his extended
family and not just his residence? After all, royal families are routinely
referred to as the "House of xyz".
Eleanor Butler wasn't 'of the house' of Warwick, whichever interpretation is
given.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:25:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
You quoted the phrase "house of Warwick". Could this mean his extended
family and not just his residence? After all, royal families are routinely
referred to as the "House of xyz".
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 07:19:29
Eileen wrote
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret.<
Richard may well have guessed about George, if Stillington didn't actually tell him when he spilled the beans about the pre-contract. Perhaps explains his uncharacteristic anger about Edward and his ways in Titulus Regius.
Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
"Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret.<
Richard may well have guessed about George, if Stillington didn't actually tell him when he spilled the beans about the pre-contract. Perhaps explains his uncharacteristic anger about Edward and his ways in Titulus Regius.
Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 09:33:22
Not when he has pretended to marry her in secret. If you ever want to watch a Pope die laughing, suggest it to him.
Did you catch my other hint?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen
I find the Gloucesters very interesting, but don't have the time (at the
moment) to digress into their lives.
You said: "the mistress could be married if a man was influentual enough to
secure a dispensation"
Which leaves the door open, a little, for Edward going this way if he chose,
doesn't it?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:47:22 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite possibly - the mistress could be married if a man was influentual
enough to secure a dispensation, or (later) if he fired the Pope and issued
his own.
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
Reply-To:
>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To:
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Did you catch my other hint?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen
I find the Gloucesters very interesting, but don't have the time (at the
moment) to digress into their lives.
You said: "the mistress could be married if a man was influentual enough to
secure a dispensation"
Which leaves the door open, a little, for Edward going this way if he chose,
doesn't it?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:47:22 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Quite possibly - the mistress could be married if a man was influentual
enough to secure a dispensation, or (later) if he fired the Pope and issued
his own.
There is another interesting case before Gaunt, isn't there?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen, did the same thing apply to Humphrey of Gloucester?
Karen
From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
Reply-To:
>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:12 -0000
To:
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Almost right. As a mistress, CdeR should have been almost precluded from
marrying Gaunt but a dispensation arrived due to his ducal influence. Their
children, already born, remained illegitimate until Henry IV legitimated
them as Beauforts.
However, no dispensation could have covered Edward's habit of secretly
marrying older Lancastrian widows. Had he been honest with EW, their sons
could have been legitimate, conceived and born after EB's demise.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
Stephen Lark wrote:
"John of Gaunt had never pretended to marry Catherine de Roet while his
other wife was still alive. Edward IV did and medieval canon law would
disqualify him from marrying EW properly."
So, if EW had only been Edward's mistress, he could still legally have
married her AFTER Eleanor Butler died and any children born after that
marriage (to EW) WOULD then have been legitimate?
Even if Edward himself hadn't thought his marriage to EW was illegal, by
not
having a public ceremony, he prevented anyone else from pointing out that,
"No, Your Majesty, you can't marry EW, you're already/still married." In
other words, Edward, or anyone in the similar circumstances, by "marrying"
secretly, was then presumed to know that his marriage was illegal, which
was
why it was secret?
And, thus, no "second chances"?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 12:12:47
Jets not forget the bonfires Virgil is alleged to have had burning documents he found praising the previous regime, before rewriting things a la Weir to suit his master.
Paul
On 27 Jan 2013, at 20:31, justcarol67 wrote:
> Karen Clark wrote:
>>
>> "Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know."
>
> Doug responded:
>> Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when "Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had been suppressed? [snip]
>> In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of what DID occur.
>> Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that you were on target at first. Vergil is suppressing or misdirecting information about the precontract (or just repeating a rumor and not making the connection with the precontract, as I suggested elsewhere). Warwick need not have known anything about the precontract--the rumor merely names the lady, perhaps mistakenly, as a member of his household. Here's the passage in question, which Karen quoted earlier:
>
> "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." <snip source>
>
> [Karen's comment:] The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E of Warwickes house."
>
> So the whole incident has nothing to do with the Earl of Warwick's knowing about the precontract and failing to use it against Edward. It has to do with Edward's wronging a woman associated with Warwick. The idea that it involved the deflowering of some woman *in the Earl of Warwick's house* (or of his household or blood) is unlikely in the extreme, Edward having too strong a sense of self-preservation to outrage his already disenchanted cousin in that way. But "soome unhonest act" involving a woman related or connected to Warwick is sufficiently vague to refer to Eleanor Butler and the precontract.
>
> As I said in another post, the rumor (still surviving into the 1530s) need not have arisen at the time of the precontract (when Warwick could have used it against Edward--though he was much more interested in casting doubt on Edward's own claim than on that of the son born only a few months before Warwick's death). Word of Edward's "unhonest action" would more likely have leaked out at the time of Titulus Regius. As I've already shown, Vergil could not have been unaware of the rumors of the precontract despite the suppression of Titulus Regius though he may not have known the lady's name--or her connection with Warwick.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 27 Jan 2013, at 20:31, justcarol67 wrote:
> Karen Clark wrote:
>>
>> "Interesting, but I wonder why? If the story Vergil heard was about Eleanor, why go to the trouble of disguising it, when it could, more easily, simply be left out of the narrative. It doesn't come up anywhere else, so far as I know."
>
> Doug responded:
>> Something along the lines of the "bait and switch" that was done when "Elizabeth Lucy" was substituted for Eleanor Butler AFTER Titulus Regius had been suppressed? [snip]
>> In this instance, while Vergil may have wanted to provide another motive for Warwick's actions, he may also have been constrained by Eleanor Butler's position as a "non-person" under Henry VII and thus been unable to report what Warwick's real motive was and invented one that was along the lines of what DID occur.
>> Although, to be honest, I simply can't see Warwick NOT using any information he possessed about the validity of Edward's marriage. Especially once he had joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and, basically, burned all his bridges.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that you were on target at first. Vergil is suppressing or misdirecting information about the precontract (or just repeating a rumor and not making the connection with the precontract, as I suggested elsewhere). Warwick need not have known anything about the precontract--the rumor merely names the lady, perhaps mistakenly, as a member of his household. Here's the passage in question, which Karen quoted earlier:
>
> "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately." <snip source>
>
> [Karen's comment:] The marginal note says: 'E 4 is supposed to deflowre some woman in the E of Warwickes house."
>
> So the whole incident has nothing to do with the Earl of Warwick's knowing about the precontract and failing to use it against Edward. It has to do with Edward's wronging a woman associated with Warwick. The idea that it involved the deflowering of some woman *in the Earl of Warwick's house* (or of his household or blood) is unlikely in the extreme, Edward having too strong a sense of self-preservation to outrage his already disenchanted cousin in that way. But "soome unhonest act" involving a woman related or connected to Warwick is sufficiently vague to refer to Eleanor Butler and the precontract.
>
> As I said in another post, the rumor (still surviving into the 1530s) need not have arisen at the time of the precontract (when Warwick could have used it against Edward--though he was much more interested in casting doubt on Edward's own claim than on that of the son born only a few months before Warwick's death). Word of Edward's "unhonest action" would more likely have leaked out at the time of Titulus Regius. As I've already shown, Vergil could not have been unaware of the rumors of the precontract despite the suppression of Titulus Regius though he may not have known the lady's name--or her connection with Warwick.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 12:22:15
On 27 Jan 2013, at 21:36, George Butterfield wrote:
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
Lord Acton actually, years before anybody had heard of Lenin.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
> "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Attrib.V. Lenin
> George
Lord Acton actually, years before anybody had heard of Lenin.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 16:27:28
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed connection between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the specific purpose of disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
> afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we can do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman referred to is Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not.
Carol responds:
I am not *convinced* of anything of the sort. I do consider it a possibility and an intriguing one. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion exploring the possibilities without dismissing them out of hand. Please don't make assumptions about what I do and do not think. I am exploring possibilities, which requires an open mind, and stating what I know has been said on the matter.
Karen:
In order to make this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and pummelled until almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and 'woman'.
Carol responds:
Are you familiar with the game of telephone? "Squeezed and pummeled" is what happens to rumors after fifty years of repetition, especially when one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned. Whatever Vergil knew, and he must have known at least as much as Commynes and Chapuys given that he was Henry's official historian and had access to any papers that had not been burned. He also, as you know, had access to rumors and was not averse to quoting them. You can see just how vague the rumor had become by his time. "An unhonest action" relating to a woman could as easily be a broken precontract as a seduction, which is Vergil's *assumption* on the matter.
Karen:
> This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as> you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is> personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards you and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you on some things or not.
Carol responds:
Since you ask, Karen, I'll tell you politely that your tone comes across as supercilious and dismissive. Also, you sometimes misstate people's opinions or assume that they are close-minded. So let me repeat, what I want is an open-minded discussion that explores all possibilities, not "I'm suspicious of that opinion." If that's all you can offer, I'm afraid that there's no point in further discussion. (I'm analytical and detail-minded. I like to discuss ideas as fully as possible. When I'm proven wrong with solid evidence, I admit it. When the evidence is conflicting or subject to interpretation, as it so often is with fifteenth- and sixteenth- century historians, I like to dissect it. And with Polydore Vergil, who never knew Edward (or Richard, but that's irrelevant here), writing at a distance of time and from a Tudor perspective, we have to be particularly careful.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Anglia Historia must have originally been written in Latin. What we're discussing is a translation. I'd be interested in seeing the original passage (and note) in Latin if anyone has access to it. My Latin is rusty in the extreme, but George and others can help me out if needed.
Karen:
> You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
>
> And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract;
Carol responds:
I see that you didn't read my reply carefully, understandable given its length and complexity. Once again, I believe for the fourth time, I agree with you that Warwick knew nothing about the precontract. that does not preclude the rumor's originating from some other source at some other time. *If* it related to Eleanor Butler, as I think probable but by no means definite, that time would have been 1483 (when Richard was proclaimed the rightful king by the Three Estates) or 1484 (when Titulus Regius was written). (Of course, that wouldn't apply if it were some other woman. One thing seems certain: it wasn't the countess or either of her daughters, or Warwick would have done much more than rebel!)
Let me repeat. I do not think, and Vergil does not say, that Warwick himself spread this rumor.
Karen:
and 2. Eleanor Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an unmarried virgin, I think the lady is not likely to be her.
Carol responds:
I certainly agree with the first two points. But the lady in question could not have been Anne or Isabel (before Isabel's marriage) or Warwick would have murdered Edward when he got him in his custody. But, as I said, rumors have a way of twisting themselves out of recognition (as in the game of telephone), especially fifty years (or considerably more, if we go back to the time of the precontract and/or Warwick's lifetime. "A lady connected to Warwick" could easily become "a lady in Warwick's house." And it's Vergil himself who speculates that the lady was a virgin whom Edward deflowered. The rumor itself is much less specific. So I think that the lady is as likely to be Eleanor as anyone else, and much more likely to be her than either of the two known virgins of Warwick's household.
Karen:
>
> Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so far as I know, doesn't mention it.
Carol responds:
You're quite correct. He actively suppresses it. Consequently, if he wants to use this bit of juicy and unspecific gossip, he can't connect it with the woman involved in the precontract, whether or not he knows her name. So either he is, like our friend Sir Thomas, actively setting up a red herring (or, in More's case, a straw man argument), making the wronged woman a seduced virgin rather than a secretly married and then abandoned widow, or he doesn't know the identity of the woman and is guessing, based on Edward's reputation as a philanderer. Alternatively, the story could involve someone else or be entirely fiction like the rumors Vergil reports about Richard stabbing Henry VI with his own hand.
Karen:
> You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady"
>
> Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Carol:
Certainly he had heard the rumor, but it was so vague that he could interpret it as he chose. So either it didn't involve Eleanor, as you think, or he didn't know that it involved Eleanor (whose name and connections he may not have known in any case), or he knew that it involved the woman to whom Edward was secretly married and deliberately chose to deflect the rumor by attributing to it a different origin, just as he denied that Dr. Shaa's sermon involved the bastardy of Edward's children and claimed that it involved the bastardy of Edward himself.
Okay. I don't think that I have anything more to say on the matter. I just want to reiterate that Vergil nowhere says that Warwick himself spread this rumor and Warwick's lack of knowledge of the precontract (a point on which I agree with you) has nothing to do with this discussion.
Carol
[snip]
> Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed connection between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the specific purpose of disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
> afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we can do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman referred to is Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not.
Carol responds:
I am not *convinced* of anything of the sort. I do consider it a possibility and an intriguing one. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion exploring the possibilities without dismissing them out of hand. Please don't make assumptions about what I do and do not think. I am exploring possibilities, which requires an open mind, and stating what I know has been said on the matter.
Karen:
In order to make this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and pummelled until almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and 'woman'.
Carol responds:
Are you familiar with the game of telephone? "Squeezed and pummeled" is what happens to rumors after fifty years of repetition, especially when one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned. Whatever Vergil knew, and he must have known at least as much as Commynes and Chapuys given that he was Henry's official historian and had access to any papers that had not been burned. He also, as you know, had access to rumors and was not averse to quoting them. You can see just how vague the rumor had become by his time. "An unhonest action" relating to a woman could as easily be a broken precontract as a seduction, which is Vergil's *assumption* on the matter.
Karen:
> This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as> you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is> personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards you and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you on some things or not.
Carol responds:
Since you ask, Karen, I'll tell you politely that your tone comes across as supercilious and dismissive. Also, you sometimes misstate people's opinions or assume that they are close-minded. So let me repeat, what I want is an open-minded discussion that explores all possibilities, not "I'm suspicious of that opinion." If that's all you can offer, I'm afraid that there's no point in further discussion. (I'm analytical and detail-minded. I like to discuss ideas as fully as possible. When I'm proven wrong with solid evidence, I admit it. When the evidence is conflicting or subject to interpretation, as it so often is with fifteenth- and sixteenth- century historians, I like to dissect it. And with Polydore Vergil, who never knew Edward (or Richard, but that's irrelevant here), writing at a distance of time and from a Tudor perspective, we have to be particularly careful.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Anglia Historia must have originally been written in Latin. What we're discussing is a translation. I'd be interested in seeing the original passage (and note) in Latin if anyone has access to it. My Latin is rusty in the extreme, but George and others can help me out if needed.
Karen:
> You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
>
> And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract;
Carol responds:
I see that you didn't read my reply carefully, understandable given its length and complexity. Once again, I believe for the fourth time, I agree with you that Warwick knew nothing about the precontract. that does not preclude the rumor's originating from some other source at some other time. *If* it related to Eleanor Butler, as I think probable but by no means definite, that time would have been 1483 (when Richard was proclaimed the rightful king by the Three Estates) or 1484 (when Titulus Regius was written). (Of course, that wouldn't apply if it were some other woman. One thing seems certain: it wasn't the countess or either of her daughters, or Warwick would have done much more than rebel!)
Let me repeat. I do not think, and Vergil does not say, that Warwick himself spread this rumor.
Karen:
and 2. Eleanor Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an unmarried virgin, I think the lady is not likely to be her.
Carol responds:
I certainly agree with the first two points. But the lady in question could not have been Anne or Isabel (before Isabel's marriage) or Warwick would have murdered Edward when he got him in his custody. But, as I said, rumors have a way of twisting themselves out of recognition (as in the game of telephone), especially fifty years (or considerably more, if we go back to the time of the precontract and/or Warwick's lifetime. "A lady connected to Warwick" could easily become "a lady in Warwick's house." And it's Vergil himself who speculates that the lady was a virgin whom Edward deflowered. The rumor itself is much less specific. So I think that the lady is as likely to be Eleanor as anyone else, and much more likely to be her than either of the two known virgins of Warwick's household.
Karen:
>
> Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so far as I know, doesn't mention it.
Carol responds:
You're quite correct. He actively suppresses it. Consequently, if he wants to use this bit of juicy and unspecific gossip, he can't connect it with the woman involved in the precontract, whether or not he knows her name. So either he is, like our friend Sir Thomas, actively setting up a red herring (or, in More's case, a straw man argument), making the wronged woman a seduced virgin rather than a secretly married and then abandoned widow, or he doesn't know the identity of the woman and is guessing, based on Edward's reputation as a philanderer. Alternatively, the story could involve someone else or be entirely fiction like the rumors Vergil reports about Richard stabbing Henry VI with his own hand.
Karen:
> You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged lady"
>
> Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Carol:
Certainly he had heard the rumor, but it was so vague that he could interpret it as he chose. So either it didn't involve Eleanor, as you think, or he didn't know that it involved Eleanor (whose name and connections he may not have known in any case), or he knew that it involved the woman to whom Edward was secretly married and deliberately chose to deflect the rumor by attributing to it a different origin, just as he denied that Dr. Shaa's sermon involved the bastardy of Edward's children and claimed that it involved the bastardy of Edward himself.
Okay. I don't think that I have anything more to say on the matter. I just want to reiterate that Vergil nowhere says that Warwick himself spread this rumor and Warwick's lack of knowledge of the precontract (a point on which I agree with you) has nothing to do with this discussion.
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 16:37:29
Richard would have remarried and whad a bunch of brats.... And they would all be executed at some point by E5. And Richard would have lost his head too. E4 made sure that there was no chance for any of his brothers to survive.....:(
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 28, 2013, at 2:17 AM, P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
> Eileen wrote
> "Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret.<
>
> Richard may well have guessed about George, if Stillington didn't actually tell him when he spilled the beans about the pre-contract. Perhaps explains his uncharacteristic anger about Edward and his ways in Titulus Regius.
>
> Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 28, 2013, at 2:17 AM, P BARRETT <favefauve@...> wrote:
> Eileen wrote
> "Imagine the anger Richard would have felt if this was the case....George executed to keep Edward's bigamy secret.<
>
> Richard may well have guessed about George, if Stillington didn't actually tell him when he spilled the beans about the pre-contract. Perhaps explains his uncharacteristic anger about Edward and his ways in Titulus Regius.
>
> Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 16:57:38
Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal
remarks.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:27:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed connection
between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the specific purpose of
disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
> afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have
cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we can
do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman referred to is
Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not.
Carol responds:
I am not *convinced* of anything of the sort. I do consider it a possibility
and an intriguing one. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion
exploring the possibilities without dismissing them out of hand. Please
don't make assumptions about what I do and do not think. I am exploring
possibilities, which requires an open mind, and stating what I know has been
said on the matter.
Karen:
In order to make this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and
pummelled until almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and
'woman'.
Carol responds:
Are you familiar with the game of telephone? "Squeezed and pummeled" is what
happens to rumors after fifty years of repetition, especially when one party
(the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend
that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's
bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and
burned. Whatever Vergil knew, and he must have known at least as much as
Commynes and Chapuys given that he was Henry's official historian and had
access to any papers that had not been burned. He also, as you know, had
access to rumors and was not averse to quoting them. You can see just how
vague the rumor had become by his time. "An unhonest action" relating to a
woman could as easily be a broken precontract as a seduction, which is
Vergil's *assumption* on the matter.
Karen:
> This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as>
you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is>
personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards you
and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you on some
things or not.
Carol responds:
Since you ask, Karen, I'll tell you politely that your tone comes across as
supercilious and dismissive. Also, you sometimes misstate people's opinions
or assume that they are close-minded. So let me repeat, what I want is an
open-minded discussion that explores all possibilities, not "I'm suspicious
of that opinion." If that's all you can offer, I'm afraid that there's no
point in further discussion. (I'm analytical and detail-minded. I like to
discuss ideas as fully as possible. When I'm proven wrong with solid
evidence, I admit it. When the evidence is conflicting or subject to
interpretation, as it so often is with fifteenth- and sixteenth- century
historians, I like to dissect it. And with Polydore Vergil, who never knew
Edward (or Richard, but that's irrelevant here), writing at a distance of
time and from a Tudor perspective, we have to be particularly careful.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Anglia Historia must have
originally been written in Latin. What we're discussing is a translation.
I'd be interested in seeing the original passage (and note) in Latin if
anyone has access to it. My Latin is rusty in the extreme, but George and
others can help me out if needed.
Karen:
> You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor
Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
>
> And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant
reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract;
Carol responds:
I see that you didn't read my reply carefully, understandable given its
length and complexity. Once again, I believe for the fourth time, I agree
with you that Warwick knew nothing about the precontract. that does not
preclude the rumor's originating from some other source at some other time.
*If* it related to Eleanor Butler, as I think probable but by no means
definite, that time would have been 1483 (when Richard was proclaimed the
rightful king by the Three Estates) or 1484 (when Titulus Regius was
written). (Of course, that wouldn't apply if it were some other woman. One
thing seems certain: it wasn't the countess or either of her daughters, or
Warwick would have done much more than rebel!)
Let me repeat. I do not think, and Vergil does not say, that Warwick himself
spread this rumor.
Karen:
and 2. Eleanor Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an
unmarried virgin, I think the lady is not likely to be her.
Carol responds:
I certainly agree with the first two points. But the lady in question could
not have been Anne or Isabel (before Isabel's marriage) or Warwick would
have murdered Edward when he got him in his custody. But, as I said, rumors
have a way of twisting themselves out of recognition (as in the game of
telephone), especially fifty years (or considerably more, if we go back to
the time of the precontract and/or Warwick's lifetime. "A lady connected to
Warwick" could easily become "a lady in Warwick's house." And it's Vergil
himself who speculates that the lady was a virgin whom Edward deflowered.
The rumor itself is much less specific. So I think that the lady is as
likely to be Eleanor as anyone else, and much more likely to be her than
either of the two known virgins of Warwick's household.
Karen:
>
> Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no
argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so far
as I know, doesn't mention it.
Carol responds:
You're quite correct. He actively suppresses it. Consequently, if he wants
to use this bit of juicy and unspecific gossip, he can't connect it with the
woman involved in the precontract, whether or not he knows her name. So
either he is, like our friend Sir Thomas, actively setting up a red herring
(or, in More's case, a straw man argument), making the wronged woman a
seduced virgin rather than a secretly married and then abandoned widow, or
he doesn't know the identity of the woman and is guessing, based on Edward's
reputation as a philanderer. Alternatively, the story could involve someone
else or be entirely fiction like the rumors Vergil reports about Richard
stabbing Henry VI with his own hand.
Karen:
> You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged
lady"
>
> Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the
precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Carol:
Certainly he had heard the rumor, but it was so vague that he could
interpret it as he chose. So either it didn't involve Eleanor, as you think,
or he didn't know that it involved Eleanor (whose name and connections he
may not have known in any case), or he knew that it involved the woman to
whom Edward was secretly married and deliberately chose to deflect the rumor
by attributing to it a different origin, just as he denied that Dr. Shaa's
sermon involved the bastardy of Edward's children and claimed that it
involved the bastardy of Edward himself.
Okay. I don't think that I have anything more to say on the matter. I just
want to reiterate that Vergil nowhere says that Warwick himself spread this
rumor and Warwick's lack of knowledge of the precontract (a point on which I
agree with you) has nothing to do with this discussion.
Carol
remarks.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:27:26 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately, no-one (so far as I know) has examined this supposed connection
between that particular story and Eleanor Butler, with the specific purpose of
disproving it, so no nice little quotes there I'm
> afraid. All you have are my thoughts. You don't agree with them, and have
cited some sources that don't do much more than speculate, which is all we can
do about a good deal of history. You are convinced that the woman referred to is
Eleanor Butler. I am convinced it's not.
Carol responds:
I am not *convinced* of anything of the sort. I do consider it a possibility
and an intriguing one. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion
exploring the possibilities without dismissing them out of hand. Please
don't make assumptions about what I do and do not think. I am exploring
possibilities, which requires an open mind, and stating what I know has been
said on the matter.
Karen:
In order to make this story fit 'Eleanor Butler', it has to be squeezed and
pummelled until almost every word is changed except 'Edward'; 'Warwick' and
'woman'.
Carol responds:
Are you familiar with the game of telephone? "Squeezed and pummeled" is what
happens to rumors after fifty years of repetition, especially when one party
(the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend
that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's
bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and
burned. Whatever Vergil knew, and he must have known at least as much as
Commynes and Chapuys given that he was Henry's official historian and had
access to any papers that had not been burned. He also, as you know, had
access to rumors and was not averse to quoting them. You can see just how
vague the rumor had become by his time. "An unhonest action" relating to a
woman could as easily be a broken precontract as a seduction, which is
Vergil's *assumption* on the matter.
Karen:
> This isn't me 'dismissing' your suggestion, it's me not agreeing with it, as>
you haven't agreed with me on this. I don't suspect your disagreement is>
personal, so why do you believe mine is? I am positively disposed towards you
and the vast majority of people in this forum, whether I agree with you on some
things or not.
Carol responds:
Since you ask, Karen, I'll tell you politely that your tone comes across as
supercilious and dismissive. Also, you sometimes misstate people's opinions
or assume that they are close-minded. So let me repeat, what I want is an
open-minded discussion that explores all possibilities, not "I'm suspicious
of that opinion." If that's all you can offer, I'm afraid that there's no
point in further discussion. (I'm analytical and detail-minded. I like to
discuss ideas as fully as possible. When I'm proven wrong with solid
evidence, I admit it. When the evidence is conflicting or subject to
interpretation, as it so often is with fifteenth- and sixteenth- century
historians, I like to dissect it. And with Polydore Vergil, who never knew
Edward (or Richard, but that's irrelevant here), writing at a distance of
time and from a Tudor perspective, we have to be particularly careful.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Anglia Historia must have
originally been written in Latin. What we're discussing is a translation.
I'd be interested in seeing the original passage (and note) in Latin if
anyone has access to it. My Latin is rusty in the extreme, but George and
others can help me out if needed.
Karen:
> You said: "Either way, the lady seems to me much more likely to be Eleanor
Butler than any other woman connected with Warwick by blood or marriage."
>
> And I say: For the reasons I stated earlier, 1. That there's no extant
reference to Warwick knowing a thing about the precontract;
Carol responds:
I see that you didn't read my reply carefully, understandable given its
length and complexity. Once again, I believe for the fourth time, I agree
with you that Warwick knew nothing about the precontract. that does not
preclude the rumor's originating from some other source at some other time.
*If* it related to Eleanor Butler, as I think probable but by no means
definite, that time would have been 1483 (when Richard was proclaimed the
rightful king by the Three Estates) or 1484 (when Titulus Regius was
written). (Of course, that wouldn't apply if it were some other woman. One
thing seems certain: it wasn't the countess or either of her daughters, or
Warwick would have done much more than rebel!)
Let me repeat. I do not think, and Vergil does not say, that Warwick himself
spread this rumor.
Karen:
and 2. Eleanor Butler was neither a woman of Warwick's household nor an
unmarried virgin, I think the lady is not likely to be her.
Carol responds:
I certainly agree with the first two points. But the lady in question could
not have been Anne or Isabel (before Isabel's marriage) or Warwick would
have murdered Edward when he got him in his custody. But, as I said, rumors
have a way of twisting themselves out of recognition (as in the game of
telephone), especially fifty years (or considerably more, if we go back to
the time of the precontract and/or Warwick's lifetime. "A lady connected to
Warwick" could easily become "a lady in Warwick's house." And it's Vergil
himself who speculates that the lady was a virgin whom Edward deflowered.
The rumor itself is much less specific. So I think that the lady is as
likely to be Eleanor as anyone else, and much more likely to be her than
either of the two known virgins of Warwick's household.
Karen:
>
> Lastly, if Vergil wanted to suppress the precontract story (and I have no
argument there) then simply not mentioning it would be the best way. He, so far
as I know, doesn't mention it.
Carol responds:
You're quite correct. He actively suppresses it. Consequently, if he wants
to use this bit of juicy and unspecific gossip, he can't connect it with the
woman involved in the precontract, whether or not he knows her name. So
either he is, like our friend Sir Thomas, actively setting up a red herring
(or, in More's case, a straw man argument), making the wronged woman a
seduced virgin rather than a secretly married and then abandoned widow, or
he doesn't know the identity of the woman and is guessing, based on Edward's
reputation as a philanderer. Alternatively, the story could involve someone
else or be entirely fiction like the rumors Vergil reports about Richard
stabbing Henry VI with his own hand.
Karen:
> You said: "but he wants for whatever reason to report the rumor of the wronged
lady"
>
> Possibly because he heard this rumour, which had nothing to do with the
precontract, and decided it was safe to include it.
Carol:
Certainly he had heard the rumor, but it was so vague that he could
interpret it as he chose. So either it didn't involve Eleanor, as you think,
or he didn't know that it involved Eleanor (whose name and connections he
may not have known in any case), or he knew that it involved the woman to
whom Edward was secretly married and deliberately chose to deflect the rumor
by attributing to it a different origin, just as he denied that Dr. Shaa's
sermon involved the bastardy of Edward's children and claimed that it
involved the bastardy of Edward himself.
Okay. I don't think that I have anything more to say on the matter. I just
want to reiterate that Vergil nowhere says that Warwick himself spread this
rumor and Warwick's lack of knowledge of the precontract (a point on which I
agree with you) has nothing to do with this discussion.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 17:23:31
Stephen wrote:
> You quoted the phrase "house of Warwick". Could this mean his extended family and not just his residence? After all, royal families are routinely referred to as the "House of xyz".
Karen Clark responded:
> Eleanor Butler wasn't 'of the house' of Warwick, whichever interpretation is given.
>
Carol comments:
However, Stephen may be on the right track; at least Kendall has made a similar suggestion. I've already quoted this passage, but it may have been overlooked given the length of my post, so here it is again:
"The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house
may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." (Karen has already made her position clear on this view of events, which she rejects.)
Now I personally think that Warwick's quarrel with Edward had nothing to do with the matter and that the rumors would have started some thirteen or fourteen years after Warwick's death at the time of Richard's proclamation as king or the Titulus Regius, but I agree with Kendall that the rumor may be a distortion of the precontract and that "a lady of Warwick's house" could be a mistake--not, in my view, because of the quarrel with Warwick but because of the relationship by marriage of Eleanor Butler to Warwick, which could easily have evolved into a lady of Warwick's house.
However, Vergil, at least in translation, makes it a lady *in* Warwick's house, as if Edward would have the effrontery to seduce a virgin (again, Vergil's interpretation) connected with Warwick in Warwick's own house. Edward never let his lust outweigh his self-preservation.
Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You quoted the phrase "house of Warwick". Could this mean his extended family and not just his residence? After all, royal families are routinely referred to as the "House of xyz".
Karen Clark responded:
> Eleanor Butler wasn't 'of the house' of Warwick, whichever interpretation is given.
>
Carol comments:
However, Stephen may be on the right track; at least Kendall has made a similar suggestion. I've already quoted this passage, but it may have been overlooked given the length of my post, so here it is again:
"The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house
may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117)." (Karen has already made her position clear on this view of events, which she rejects.)
Now I personally think that Warwick's quarrel with Edward had nothing to do with the matter and that the rumors would have started some thirteen or fourteen years after Warwick's death at the time of Richard's proclamation as king or the Titulus Regius, but I agree with Kendall that the rumor may be a distortion of the precontract and that "a lady of Warwick's house" could be a mistake--not, in my view, because of the quarrel with Warwick but because of the relationship by marriage of Eleanor Butler to Warwick, which could easily have evolved into a lady of Warwick's house.
However, Vergil, at least in translation, makes it a lady *in* Warwick's house, as if Edward would have the effrontery to seduce a virgin (again, Vergil's interpretation) connected with Warwick in Warwick's own house. Edward never let his lust outweigh his self-preservation.
Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 17:23:52
Hmm...lessee.
Would EW have exerted her influence on E5 as MB did on H6?
Would Richard have been useful to E5 as he was to E4?
Would someone else have stolen the north away from Richard (e.g., Northumberland?) and been more useful?
Would Richard have remarried at E5's order and left England?
Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on.
Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a slew of happy little commoners?
Would Richard have been executed or locked away forever at the urging of EW?
Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after?
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
.
.
.
> Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
Would EW have exerted her influence on E5 as MB did on H6?
Would Richard have been useful to E5 as he was to E4?
Would someone else have stolen the north away from Richard (e.g., Northumberland?) and been more useful?
Would Richard have remarried at E5's order and left England?
Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on.
Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a slew of happy little commoners?
Would Richard have been executed or locked away forever at the urging of EW?
Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after?
--- In , P BARRETT wrote:
.
.
.
> Edward no doubt thought he would outlive an elderly bishop and all would be well. I wonder what would have happened to Richard if E4 had lived longer, E5 had been an adult when he came to the throne, and still under Woodville influence? Would have have been left as Lord of the North, would he have remarried, had more children? Alternative history is a very inexact science...
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 17:30:48
I can't think about this for very long, it makes me feel sick. Must consult Dante to find out which ring of hell Vergil ended up in if the allegation is true.
~Weds
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Jets not forget the bonfires Virgil is alleged to have had burning documents he found praising the previous regime, before rewriting things a la Weir to suit his master.
> Paul
~Weds
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Jets not forget the bonfires Virgil is alleged to have had burning documents he found praising the previous regime, before rewriting things a la Weir to suit his master.
> Paul
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 18:05:49
Hi, Carol,
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 18:08:28
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal remarks.
Carol responds:
Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion (which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree" doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
Carol
>
> Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal remarks.
Carol responds:
Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion (which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree" doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 18:10:07
"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I can't think about this for very long, it makes me feel sick. Must consult Dante to find out which ring of hell Vergil ended up in if the allegation is true.
>
> ~Weds
Carol responds:
Oops. Wrong Vergil. Polydore wasn't born yet. By the way, I've heard that the document burner could have been Cardinal Morton's nephew, Robert, but can't recall the details. Anyone know anything about that? If it's true, Vergil had more than the lost Titulus Regius and Tudor pressure to contend with. He had an absence of information. Not that I'm wholly excusing Polydore, but it seems that someone destroyed the codicil to Edward's will appointing Richard as Protector and Richard's own will, and IIRC Robert Morton was in a position to do it.
Anyone?
Carol
>
> I can't think about this for very long, it makes me feel sick. Must consult Dante to find out which ring of hell Vergil ended up in if the allegation is true.
>
> ~Weds
Carol responds:
Oops. Wrong Vergil. Polydore wasn't born yet. By the way, I've heard that the document burner could have been Cardinal Morton's nephew, Robert, but can't recall the details. Anyone know anything about that? If it's true, Vergil had more than the lost Titulus Regius and Tudor pressure to contend with. He had an absence of information. Not that I'm wholly excusing Polydore, but it seems that someone destroyed the codicil to Edward's will appointing Richard as Protector and Richard's own will, and IIRC Robert Morton was in a position to do it.
Anyone?
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 18:22:30
"Richard would have remarried and whad a bunch of brats.... And they
would all be executed at some point by E5. And Richard would have lost
his head too. E4 made sure that there was no chance for any of his
brothers to survive..... :("
Perhaps not. If E5 had children and so did little brother R of York, then Richard of Gloucester would be removed many spaces from the throne. Rather like the current Prince Andrew who used to 2nd in line and is - I think - now 4th and will be 5th when the new baby arrives this year. Something to be thankful for - Andrew would kill the monarchy stone dead very quickly.
And the Plantagenets weren't quite as keen of executions as the Tudors..
would all be executed at some point by E5. And Richard would have lost
his head too. E4 made sure that there was no chance for any of his
brothers to survive..... :("
Perhaps not. If E5 had children and so did little brother R of York, then Richard of Gloucester would be removed many spaces from the throne. Rather like the current Prince Andrew who used to 2nd in line and is - I think - now 4th and will be 5th when the new baby arrives this year. Something to be thankful for - Andrew would kill the monarchy stone dead very quickly.
And the Plantagenets weren't quite as keen of executions as the Tudors..
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 18:26:49
Oh yeah, I did not think about the possibility of heirs to E5 and his brother. I was just thinking that Richard's and his heir's life would have been forfeit as soon as EW had a chance to neutralize them.....
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
"Richard would have remarried and whad a bunch of brats.... And they
would all be executed at some point by E5. And Richard would have lost
his head too. E4 made sure that there was no chance for any of his
brothers to survive..... :("
Perhaps not. If E5 had children and so did little brother R of York, then Richard of Gloucester would be removed many spaces from the throne. Rather like the current Prince Andrew who used to 2nd in line and is - I think - now 4th and will be 5th when the new baby arrives this year. Something to be thankful for - Andrew would kill the monarchy stone dead very quickly.
And the Plantagenets weren't quite as keen of executions as the Tudors..
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
"Richard would have remarried and whad a bunch of brats.... And they
would all be executed at some point by E5. And Richard would have lost
his head too. E4 made sure that there was no chance for any of his
brothers to survive..... :("
Perhaps not. If E5 had children and so did little brother R of York, then Richard of Gloucester would be removed many spaces from the throne. Rather like the current Prince Andrew who used to 2nd in line and is - I think - now 4th and will be 5th when the new baby arrives this year. Something to be thankful for - Andrew would kill the monarchy stone dead very quickly.
And the Plantagenets weren't quite as keen of executions as the Tudors..
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 18:54:29
"Killed an under-age claimant without trial" - think of Henry Pole the Younger.
----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi, Carol,
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi, Carol,
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 19:14:01
Carol
Maybe we needed to get to that point before we could draw breath and move
on. There's no need for you to apologise. I may not be explaining myself
well, which could be coming across as a little brusque and dismissive. It's
not intended to.
I don't have a PhD, but nearly twenty years in academia have had an
influence on how I think and write. Defending a point of view, and expecting
others to do the same, is part of that. I tend to look at things fairly
holistically and I apply Occam's Razor wherever possible. I do have an open
mind and I don't have an agenda. Or not one that isn't out there in the
open. I want to find out about Richard without first subscribing to any
preconceived notions. I did have them once, but the more I read about and
discussed him, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was that those
notions (as a whole) were sustainable. So I'm gong to question and I'm going
to doubt. And I'm going to question and doubt the assertions made by those
writers who believe Richard wholly guilty of every crime laid at his door as
well as those writers who believe him wholly innocent. As I've said before,
I'm pretty sure I'll find the truth somewhere between these two.
An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
know that he knew.
Secondly, the relationship between the Warwicks and the countess's half
sisters wasn't nearly close enough for Eleanor to be mistaken as a member of
his family. Now I know that women maintained all kinds of relationships with
each other, despite being on opposite sides and even despite having husbands
who were at each other's throats. Close family members also managed to
maintain cordial relations in difficult circumstances. Henry Fitzhugh and
his sister, Joan (and her husband, Lord Scrope of Bolton) were involved in a
bitter legal dispute for many years over some land in York without that
spilling into their personal relationships. So, the Warwicks may well have
felt warmly towards Eleanor. If they did, then that makes the question "If
Warwick knew, why was he silent?" even more pressing.
You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward.
You mentioned in another post that Edward wasn't stupid enough to misbehave
in Warwick's house. The Vergil passage has been interpreted as Edward
deflowering one of Warwick's daughters and I agree, this is highly unlikely.
A woman 'in the earl's house' doesn't have to be a family member. She might
have been a member of the household who caught Edward's eye. And it needn't
have been a deflowering, or anything close to it. It might have been
harmless flirtation. Given Warwick's likely state of mind when he defected
from Edward, and given the ease with which he seems to have been 'outraged',
and given his opinion of Edward as (iirc) recorded by Louis XI, all that
would be needed was something like "And he can't even keep his hands off the
women in my house!" for that to be taken as something more serious. I am
totally speculating here, of course. But Warwick's likely response and
reaction to a (possible) minor indiscretion of Edward's isn't far off the
mark. There's evidence to suggest that he was quite prudish and didn't
approve of extra-marital goings on. (I suspect he was soundly chastised for
his own indiscretion in or around Carlisle that resulted in his daughter,
Margaret, which seems likely to me to have occurred when he was around 17.)
His edict in Calais that all the men who had 'girlfriends' should either end
it or marry them is strongly suggestive of a prudish streak. ('prude' is
such a pejorative word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.)
His own marriage would seem to have been strong and, after Margaret, there's
not a breath of a whisper of infidelity.
My interpretation might well be way off beam. But the application of Occam's
Razor to the question 'who and what does that passage refer to?' leads me to
that interpretation. As I said at the start of this, the answer 'Eleanor
Butler' would require me to jump through too many hoops and change almost
every word in that passage to fit the story. Which is not to accuse anyone
who does think it might refer to Eleanor as jumping through mental hoops &c.
Looking at it logically, it just doesn't work for me.
Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
kind of sense.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:01:37 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal
remarks.
Carol responds:
Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your
disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your
posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not
convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion
(which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also
mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and
a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard
to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was
taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you
regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and
respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree"
doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no
more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
Carol
Maybe we needed to get to that point before we could draw breath and move
on. There's no need for you to apologise. I may not be explaining myself
well, which could be coming across as a little brusque and dismissive. It's
not intended to.
I don't have a PhD, but nearly twenty years in academia have had an
influence on how I think and write. Defending a point of view, and expecting
others to do the same, is part of that. I tend to look at things fairly
holistically and I apply Occam's Razor wherever possible. I do have an open
mind and I don't have an agenda. Or not one that isn't out there in the
open. I want to find out about Richard without first subscribing to any
preconceived notions. I did have them once, but the more I read about and
discussed him, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was that those
notions (as a whole) were sustainable. So I'm gong to question and I'm going
to doubt. And I'm going to question and doubt the assertions made by those
writers who believe Richard wholly guilty of every crime laid at his door as
well as those writers who believe him wholly innocent. As I've said before,
I'm pretty sure I'll find the truth somewhere between these two.
An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
know that he knew.
Secondly, the relationship between the Warwicks and the countess's half
sisters wasn't nearly close enough for Eleanor to be mistaken as a member of
his family. Now I know that women maintained all kinds of relationships with
each other, despite being on opposite sides and even despite having husbands
who were at each other's throats. Close family members also managed to
maintain cordial relations in difficult circumstances. Henry Fitzhugh and
his sister, Joan (and her husband, Lord Scrope of Bolton) were involved in a
bitter legal dispute for many years over some land in York without that
spilling into their personal relationships. So, the Warwicks may well have
felt warmly towards Eleanor. If they did, then that makes the question "If
Warwick knew, why was he silent?" even more pressing.
You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward.
You mentioned in another post that Edward wasn't stupid enough to misbehave
in Warwick's house. The Vergil passage has been interpreted as Edward
deflowering one of Warwick's daughters and I agree, this is highly unlikely.
A woman 'in the earl's house' doesn't have to be a family member. She might
have been a member of the household who caught Edward's eye. And it needn't
have been a deflowering, or anything close to it. It might have been
harmless flirtation. Given Warwick's likely state of mind when he defected
from Edward, and given the ease with which he seems to have been 'outraged',
and given his opinion of Edward as (iirc) recorded by Louis XI, all that
would be needed was something like "And he can't even keep his hands off the
women in my house!" for that to be taken as something more serious. I am
totally speculating here, of course. But Warwick's likely response and
reaction to a (possible) minor indiscretion of Edward's isn't far off the
mark. There's evidence to suggest that he was quite prudish and didn't
approve of extra-marital goings on. (I suspect he was soundly chastised for
his own indiscretion in or around Carlisle that resulted in his daughter,
Margaret, which seems likely to me to have occurred when he was around 17.)
His edict in Calais that all the men who had 'girlfriends' should either end
it or marry them is strongly suggestive of a prudish streak. ('prude' is
such a pejorative word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.)
His own marriage would seem to have been strong and, after Margaret, there's
not a breath of a whisper of infidelity.
My interpretation might well be way off beam. But the application of Occam's
Razor to the question 'who and what does that passage refer to?' leads me to
that interpretation. As I said at the start of this, the answer 'Eleanor
Butler' would require me to jump through too many hoops and change almost
every word in that passage to fit the story. Which is not to accuse anyone
who does think it might refer to Eleanor as jumping through mental hoops &c.
Looking at it logically, it just doesn't work for me.
Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
kind of sense.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:01:37 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal
remarks.
Carol responds:
Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your
disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your
posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not
convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion
(which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also
mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and
a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard
to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was
taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you
regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and
respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree"
doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no
more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 19:31:46
"Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
slew of happy little commoners?"
Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
"Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
Or this - perish the thought!
"Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
slew of happy little commoners?"
Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
"Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
Or this - perish the thought!
"Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 19:48:38
That is a wonderful and thoughtful presentation. Must to chew on!
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi, Carol,
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi, Carol,
I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
- Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
- Executed multiple heirs to the throne
- Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
>...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 19:49:28
An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
Elvis, anyone?
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
"Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
slew of happy little commoners?"
Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
"Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
Or this - perish the thought!
"Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
Elvis, anyone?
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: P BARRETT <favefauve@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
"Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
slew of happy little commoners?"
Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
"Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
Or this - perish the thought!
"Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 20:04:36
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
[snip]
Carol responds:
I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote the original passage and note from your earlier post:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
>
The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
woman in the E of Warwickes house."
I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the way.)
In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it. Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
Carol
[snip]
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
[snip]
Carol responds:
I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote the original passage and note from your earlier post:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
>
The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
woman in the E of Warwickes house."
I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the way.)
In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it. Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 20:44:22
Carol
The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
right quote in the text.
I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
"But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
possible"
'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
far better job of it than this.
I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
Edward/Eleanor marriage.
It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
Karen
'
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
[snip]
Carol responds:
I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
the original passage and note from your earlier post:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
>
The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
woman in the E of Warwickes house."
I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
"unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
historian, by the way.)
In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
Carol
The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
right quote in the text.
I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
"But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
possible"
'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
far better job of it than this.
I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
Edward/Eleanor marriage.
It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
Karen
'
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
[snip]
Carol responds:
I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
the original passage and note from your earlier post:
"and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
>
The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
woman in the E of Warwickes house."
I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
"unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
historian, by the way.)
In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 22:37:53
Shall we add that to the list, and any other events/items we can think of? When do the parallels stop being coincidence, I wonder?
1. Killed an underage claimant without trial (Henry Pole the Younger) (is he the only one?)
2. Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
3. Executed multiple heirs to the throne
4. Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "Killed an under-age claimant without trial" - think of Henry Pole the Younger.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hi, Carol,
>
> I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
>
> All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
>
> What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
>
> - Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
> - Executed multiple heirs to the throne
> - Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
>
> How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
1. Killed an underage claimant without trial (Henry Pole the Younger) (is he the only one?)
2. Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
3. Executed multiple heirs to the throne
4. Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "Killed an under-age claimant without trial" - think of Henry Pole the Younger.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hi, Carol,
>
> I was thinking recently that "projection bias" is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world -- usually to other people. Recently, I was wondering if the Tudors did this deliberately.
>
> All of the evils ascribed to Richard, the Tudor circle might have done themselves, beginning with MB and HT -- except that none of them were hunchbacked, but as that was an outer symbol of an inner evil, it still might apply. When I began making a list of the "sins" laid at Richard's feet, I found I could also list someone in the Tudor circle -- sometimes multiple suspects -- alongside each sin.
>
> What stunned me was in many cases there were actual events where a Tudor (or member of the circle) had done the same thing Richard was accused of doing, that Richard never did. Things like:
>
> - Plotted for years in the shadows to take the throne
> - Executed multiple heirs to the throne
> - Was determined to marry Elizabeth of York and did so
>
> How ironic it would be if MB (always underestimated) and her family succeeded in creating from whole cloth archetypal villain Richard, and in plain view, if all of the details of the villainous plot were based on things she and her family were actually guilty of doing.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >...one party (the Tudor faction) has deliberately destroyed evidence trying to pretend that something never happened (Titulus Regius, declared Edward's children's bastards because of Edward's marriage to Eleanor butler, was banned and burned.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 22:47:09
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so highly began to e angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks much. I found a corrupt version online, but it's so full of typos as to be nearly useless:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft/polydorevergil00camduoft_djvu.txt
If you can link me to a better version, I'd appreciate it!
Meanwhile, the context you provided makes it clear where your argument is coming from (and Kendall's, too). However, you and I know that "the matter . . . for which they fell out" had nothing to do with any young lady that Edward had deflowered--and probably had nothing to do with Eleanor Butler, either. Had Warwick known about that secret marriage, he certainly wouldn't have wasted his time negotiating for a marriage between Edward IV and Bona of Savoy! Vergil seems to think that the rumor relates to this time, but he gets on with the question of the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and Warwick's anger over the vain negotiations.
You're right that Vergil does tend to conflate things, and I think that's what he's doing here--assigning the rumor to a time that makes sense to him (or fits with his pro-Tudor agenda, which ignores the whole precontract). Kendall seems to put the time and the rumor together, which would make sense given that the precontract predates the falling out with Warwick, but since Warwick doesn't seem to know about the precontract (and never displayed any anger over anyone's deflowering, either), I think that Vergil is suggesting a connection that isn't there by juxtaposing unrelated events.
At any rate, thanks to this quotation, I now understand where you're coming from I wish you'd quoted it the first time I suggested that Warwick had nothing to do with the rumor. It would have saved us both a lot of typing. I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given.
So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any case.
Carol
[snip]
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so highly began to e angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks much. I found a corrupt version online, but it's so full of typos as to be nearly useless:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft/polydorevergil00camduoft_djvu.txt
If you can link me to a better version, I'd appreciate it!
Meanwhile, the context you provided makes it clear where your argument is coming from (and Kendall's, too). However, you and I know that "the matter . . . for which they fell out" had nothing to do with any young lady that Edward had deflowered--and probably had nothing to do with Eleanor Butler, either. Had Warwick known about that secret marriage, he certainly wouldn't have wasted his time negotiating for a marriage between Edward IV and Bona of Savoy! Vergil seems to think that the rumor relates to this time, but he gets on with the question of the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and Warwick's anger over the vain negotiations.
You're right that Vergil does tend to conflate things, and I think that's what he's doing here--assigning the rumor to a time that makes sense to him (or fits with his pro-Tudor agenda, which ignores the whole precontract). Kendall seems to put the time and the rumor together, which would make sense given that the precontract predates the falling out with Warwick, but since Warwick doesn't seem to know about the precontract (and never displayed any anger over anyone's deflowering, either), I think that Vergil is suggesting a connection that isn't there by juxtaposing unrelated events.
At any rate, thanks to this quotation, I now understand where you're coming from I wish you'd quoted it the first time I suggested that Warwick had nothing to do with the rumor. It would have saved us both a lot of typing. I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given.
So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any case.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-28 22:57:34
Carol earlier:
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one: http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-english-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one: http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-english-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 22:57:38
Along these lines...Tanya Huft is an author with a book series featuring Henry VIII's acknowledged illegitimate son (Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset) as a vampire. She created a fascinating backstory, and there was a Canadian TV series a few years ago based on it as well. Henry had a portrait of Dad just inside his front door.
The real FitzRoy had a strange, wonderful, brief life. When he died, his body was ordered wrapped in lead and taken in a closed cart for secret interment, but his servants put the body in a straw-filled wagon. The only mourners were two attendants who followed at a distance. He's buried in Framlingham Church, Suffolk.
--- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The real FitzRoy had a strange, wonderful, brief life. When he died, his body was ordered wrapped in lead and taken in a closed cart for secret interment, but his servants put the body in a straw-filled wagon. The only mourners were two attendants who followed at a distance. He's buried in Framlingham Church, Suffolk.
--- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-28 23:24:48
In one of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, it is alluded that Elvis lives as a vampire! Hence all the sightings. He was turned just before he died by a vampire admirer....:D
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 28, 2013, at 5:57 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Along these lines...Tanya Huft is an author with a book series featuring Henry VIII's acknowledged illegitimate son (Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset) as a vampire. She created a fascinating backstory, and there was a Canadian TV series a few years ago based on it as well. Henry had a portrait of Dad just inside his front door.
>
> The real FitzRoy had a strange, wonderful, brief life. When he died, his body was ordered wrapped in lead and taken in a closed cart for secret interment, but his servants put the body in a straw-filled wagon. The only mourners were two attendants who followed at a distance. He's buried in Framlingham Church, Suffolk.
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
> >
> > Elvis, anyone?
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: P BARRETT
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> > stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> > slew of happy little commoners?"
> >
> > Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
> >
> > "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
> >
> > Or this - perish the thought!
> >
> > "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
> >
> > Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 28, 2013, at 5:57 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Along these lines...Tanya Huft is an author with a book series featuring Henry VIII's acknowledged illegitimate son (Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset) as a vampire. She created a fascinating backstory, and there was a Canadian TV series a few years ago based on it as well. Henry had a portrait of Dad just inside his front door.
>
> The real FitzRoy had a strange, wonderful, brief life. When he died, his body was ordered wrapped in lead and taken in a closed cart for secret interment, but his servants put the body in a straw-filled wagon. The only mourners were two attendants who followed at a distance. He's buried in Framlingham Church, Suffolk.
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
> >
> > Elvis, anyone?
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: P BARRETT
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> > stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> > slew of happy little commoners?"
> >
> > Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
> >
> > "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
> >
> > Or this - perish the thought!
> >
> > "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
> >
> > Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 02:08:59
Carol
You said: "I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors,
which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how
someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a
red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given."
I'm not taking Vergil at his word at all. I don't believe Edward seduced
anyone in the Earl's house. You provide a clue, though, when you suggest I'm
not as 'leery' of Vergil as you are. Perhaps I'm not 'leery' in quite the
same way you are.
We might never find independent evidence of a marriage between Eleanor
Butler and Edward IV, but we shouldn't stop looking. Finding it in 'vague
rumours' involves (for me) too much manipulation of the text to qualify it
as evidence.
Anyway, here's the link:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft#page/n5/mode/2up
To change the subject for a moment, while I have ordered documents from
various libraries and depositories (the National Archives, the Madgalen
Library &c) being so far from the UK has forced me to find other sources of
information. There is such a lot of primary material online it boggles the
mind! Some of it has taken a good deal of hunting, others (like the Vergil
book) have simply been a matter of googling and working through the links.
Online, I've found just about all the relevant chronicles, rolls of
parliament, close rolls, privy council proceedings, some wills, the Paston
letters, the Plumpton correspondence and a whole bunch of other things. It's
well worth the, sometimes, hours of frustration to finally get to the
information you want. I'm always happy to provide links.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the bit
under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after thearle
had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and that his
dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the contractyng of this
new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so highly began to e angry
thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a man unwoorthy of the regall
scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever it
was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit here,
Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks much. I found a corrupt version online, but it's so full of typos as
to be nearly useless:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft/polydorevergil00camduoft_
djvu.txt
If you can link me to a better version, I'd appreciate it!
Meanwhile, the context you provided makes it clear where your argument is
coming from (and Kendall's, too). However, you and I know that "the matter .
. . for which they fell out" had nothing to do with any young lady that
Edward had deflowered--and probably had nothing to do with Eleanor Butler,
either. Had Warwick known about that secret marriage, he certainly wouldn't
have wasted his time negotiating for a marriage between Edward IV and Bona
of Savoy! Vergil seems to think that the rumor relates to this time, but he
gets on with the question of the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and
Warwick's anger over the vain negotiations.
You're right that Vergil does tend to conflate things, and I think that's
what he's doing here--assigning the rumor to a time that makes sense to him
(or fits with his pro-Tudor agenda, which ignores the whole precontract).
Kendall seems to put the time and the rumor together, which would make sense
given that the precontract predates the falling out with Warwick, but since
Warwick doesn't seem to know about the precontract (and never displayed any
anger over anyone's deflowering, either), I think that Vergil is suggesting
a connection that isn't there by juxtaposing unrelated events.
At any rate, thanks to this quotation, I now understand where you're coming
from I wish you'd quoted it the first time I suggested that Warwick had
nothing to do with the rumor. It would have saved us both a lot of typing. I
can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then
reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less
leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring).
I don't, for the reasons already given.
So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to
this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think
we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it
in any case.
Carol
You said: "I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors,
which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how
someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a
red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given."
I'm not taking Vergil at his word at all. I don't believe Edward seduced
anyone in the Earl's house. You provide a clue, though, when you suggest I'm
not as 'leery' of Vergil as you are. Perhaps I'm not 'leery' in quite the
same way you are.
We might never find independent evidence of a marriage between Eleanor
Butler and Edward IV, but we shouldn't stop looking. Finding it in 'vague
rumours' involves (for me) too much manipulation of the text to qualify it
as evidence.
Anyway, here's the link:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft#page/n5/mode/2up
To change the subject for a moment, while I have ordered documents from
various libraries and depositories (the National Archives, the Madgalen
Library &c) being so far from the UK has forced me to find other sources of
information. There is such a lot of primary material online it boggles the
mind! Some of it has taken a good deal of hunting, others (like the Vergil
book) have simply been a matter of googling and working through the links.
Online, I've found just about all the relevant chronicles, rolls of
parliament, close rolls, privy council proceedings, some wills, the Paston
letters, the Plumpton correspondence and a whole bunch of other things. It's
well worth the, sometimes, hours of frustration to finally get to the
information you want. I'm always happy to provide links.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the bit
under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after thearle
had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and that his
dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the contractyng of this
new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so highly began to e angry
thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a man unwoorthy of the regall
scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever it
was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit here,
Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks much. I found a corrupt version online, but it's so full of typos as
to be nearly useless:
http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft/polydorevergil00camduoft_
djvu.txt
If you can link me to a better version, I'd appreciate it!
Meanwhile, the context you provided makes it clear where your argument is
coming from (and Kendall's, too). However, you and I know that "the matter .
. . for which they fell out" had nothing to do with any young lady that
Edward had deflowered--and probably had nothing to do with Eleanor Butler,
either. Had Warwick known about that secret marriage, he certainly wouldn't
have wasted his time negotiating for a marriage between Edward IV and Bona
of Savoy! Vergil seems to think that the rumor relates to this time, but he
gets on with the question of the marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and
Warwick's anger over the vain negotiations.
You're right that Vergil does tend to conflate things, and I think that's
what he's doing here--assigning the rumor to a time that makes sense to him
(or fits with his pro-Tudor agenda, which ignores the whole precontract).
Kendall seems to put the time and the rumor together, which would make sense
given that the precontract predates the falling out with Warwick, but since
Warwick doesn't seem to know about the precontract (and never displayed any
anger over anyone's deflowering, either), I think that Vergil is suggesting
a connection that isn't there by juxtaposing unrelated events.
At any rate, thanks to this quotation, I now understand where you're coming
from I wish you'd quoted it the first time I suggested that Warwick had
nothing to do with the rumor. It would have saved us both a lot of typing. I
can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then
reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less
leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring).
I don't, for the reasons already given.
So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to
this edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think
we can safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it
in any case.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 02:09:16
Carol
That's the one I have. I posted the link before I saw this.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:57:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this
edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can
safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any
case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one:
http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-englis
h-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too
rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
That's the one I have. I posted the link before I saw this.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:57:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this
edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can
safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any
case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one:
http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-englis
h-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too
rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 03:40:58
Carol
Here's the Latin:
Nec abhorret a veritate Edouardum tentasse, ut aiunt, nescio quid in domo
comitis quod ab honestate omnino abesse, cum homo esset qui facile puellis
oculos adiiceret easque deperiret. Caeterum quicquid fuerit, sive iniuria
sive aemulatio imperii, quamobrem amicitia violata sint, posteaquam comes
per literas amicorum cognovit ipsum regem occulte habere uxorem, et irritum
infectum evasisse quicquid ipse in ea legatione de nova affinitate iugenda
apud Ludovicum regem egisset, tanta repente animi indignatio eum cepit ut
iam tum ipsum Edouardum ut hominem imperio minime dignum omnibus modis regno
pellendum iudicarit.
My Latin really isn't up to it, even with the (dubious) help of a machine
translator.
And here's the source:
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/24lat.html
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:57:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this
edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can
safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any
case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one:
http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-englis
h-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too
rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
Here's the Latin:
Nec abhorret a veritate Edouardum tentasse, ut aiunt, nescio quid in domo
comitis quod ab honestate omnino abesse, cum homo esset qui facile puellis
oculos adiiceret easque deperiret. Caeterum quicquid fuerit, sive iniuria
sive aemulatio imperii, quamobrem amicitia violata sint, posteaquam comes
per literas amicorum cognovit ipsum regem occulte habere uxorem, et irritum
infectum evasisse quicquid ipse in ea legatione de nova affinitate iugenda
apud Ludovicum regem egisset, tanta repente animi indignatio eum cepit ut
iam tum ipsum Edouardum ut hominem imperio minime dignum omnibus modis regno
pellendum iudicarit.
My Latin really isn't up to it, even with the (dubious) help of a machine
translator.
And here's the source:
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/24lat.html
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:57:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
> So, unless someone comes up with the original Latin passage, which we can
examine in relation to the English version)s), or you have a better link to this
edition of Vergil (most online versions use modern spelling), I think we can
safely drop this topic now. No one else seems to be interested in it in any
case.
>
Carol again:
Found a better one:
http://www.questia.com/read/11350175/three-books-of-polydore-vergil-s-englis
h-history
I haven't really looked for the Latin one since, like you, my Latin is too
rusty to identify the passage without more trouble than it's worth.
Georgius tu adjuves nos?
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 14:42:43
Karen,
So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
>
> Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
>
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> >
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
>
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
>
> Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
>
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... >
> Reply-To:
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> >
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
>
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
>
>
>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
>
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:03:46
Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being 'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering - discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?), misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here with mimumum damage.
As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very boring! Hilary
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
>
> Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended and objected.
> The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible. Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again. Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary said:
>
> "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
>
> And
>
> "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> heirs."
>
> Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> yet.
>
> Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> actions, motives and reasons.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> To: "
> "
>
> >
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
> "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
> to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering - discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?), misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here with mimumum damage.
As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very boring! Hilary
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
>
> Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended and objected.
> The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible. Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again. Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary said:
>
> "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
>
> And
>
> "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> heirs."
>
> Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> yet.
>
> Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> actions, motives and reasons.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: ""
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> To: "
> "
>
> >
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
> "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe, but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes sense
> to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:21:15
Carol,
Again many apologies for delay in replying.
Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). The theory is questionable because of the supposed age of John Clement that he cites but the story was used by Vanora Bennett in the 'Portrait of an Unknown Woman'.
Leslau also analysed the protraits of Richard and Edward and says that the rings on their fingers are symbolic of the broken realm caused by E's marriage etc (can't remember it all, but it is fascinating) AND had investigated Eleanor Butler and reckoned that she had been moved clandestinely to the convent of the Minories in London after 1468 where her sister Elizabeth Mowbray was eventually buried beside her. He based this on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which were passed on by Elizabeth in 1595 and also asserts she could have had a son by Edward called Dr John Botwright (who did actually exist).
It is all very interesting and he writes with great authority and not a little scholarship. Unfortunately, he died fairly recently and his website holbeinartworks is under reconstruction. If may be a total load of tosh but ........ I do hope they hurry and reconstruct it because it's at least worth the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Leslau! That's the name I couldn't remember. Hilary, can you tell me the author's full name and the title of the article or book? It does sound fanciful, but I'm curious.
>
> Carol
>
Again many apologies for delay in replying.
Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). The theory is questionable because of the supposed age of John Clement that he cites but the story was used by Vanora Bennett in the 'Portrait of an Unknown Woman'.
Leslau also analysed the protraits of Richard and Edward and says that the rings on their fingers are symbolic of the broken realm caused by E's marriage etc (can't remember it all, but it is fascinating) AND had investigated Eleanor Butler and reckoned that she had been moved clandestinely to the convent of the Minories in London after 1468 where her sister Elizabeth Mowbray was eventually buried beside her. He based this on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which were passed on by Elizabeth in 1595 and also asserts she could have had a son by Edward called Dr John Botwright (who did actually exist).
It is all very interesting and he writes with great authority and not a little scholarship. Unfortunately, he died fairly recently and his website holbeinartworks is under reconstruction. If may be a total load of tosh but ........ I do hope they hurry and reconstruct it because it's at least worth the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Stephen, I know Eleanor is recorded as having died in 1468, but there is the theory from Leslau (however fanciful but fairly well supported from his evidence) that she didn't die until 1495 and was looked after secretly by her sister Elizabeth at a convent in London. It's based on bequests to Corpus Christi College Cambridge which appear then. Now if she was not indeed dead then that would have changed everything (and is fertile territory for novelists).
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Leslau! That's the name I couldn't remember. Hilary, can you tell me the author's full name and the title of the article or book? It does sound fanciful, but I'm curious.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-29 15:23:56
Hi Judy,
There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
--- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
--- In , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: ""
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:34:14
Hilary
A great deal of any discussion about Richard is bound to be speculative,
it's the nature of things. I have Hicks' Richard III book but haven't read
it thoroughly as yet, so I can't comment on that. I do agree with you about
his Anne Nevill book. While bits of it are useful, I wonder what editorial
pressure he might have been under to sex it up. His Warwick book is more
than sound, though. I bought Kendall's originally and, some years later, got
hold of Hicks and, more recently, Pollard. I'd recommend either of them
before Kendall.
At the moment, the Nevills are very much my focus. It's an interesting
position to be in, I've stepped back a lot, hoping to get a wider view of
things. I used to hold a fairly standard Ricardian view but have
deliberately set that aside and am questioning just about everything, not
because I've shifted to a more 'traditionalist' stance, or because I'm
difficult, but because I want to re-examine it all with a clean slate. (And
yes, I've probably mixed few metaphors there!)
I haven't rejected the precontract out of hand, but there are a lot of
questions in my head. I don't think my view will (or can) ever be that the
marriage didn't take place, because of the whole difficulty of proving a
negative. The lack of details makes it difficult to either wholly prove or
entirely disprove. I've been quite hard on myself over this, having to let
go of a lot things I thought I knew. I think Richard was a decent man,
definitely flawed, as you say, who probably did come to the decision to take
the throne with difficulty.
I'm sure there's a lot we agree on.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen,
So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually
don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think
we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think
Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of
his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect
for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor
was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater
than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some
here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just
have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason.
Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before
ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed
too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
>
> Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
>
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> >
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky
TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A great deal of any discussion about Richard is bound to be speculative,
it's the nature of things. I have Hicks' Richard III book but haven't read
it thoroughly as yet, so I can't comment on that. I do agree with you about
his Anne Nevill book. While bits of it are useful, I wonder what editorial
pressure he might have been under to sex it up. His Warwick book is more
than sound, though. I bought Kendall's originally and, some years later, got
hold of Hicks and, more recently, Pollard. I'd recommend either of them
before Kendall.
At the moment, the Nevills are very much my focus. It's an interesting
position to be in, I've stepped back a lot, hoping to get a wider view of
things. I used to hold a fairly standard Ricardian view but have
deliberately set that aside and am questioning just about everything, not
because I've shifted to a more 'traditionalist' stance, or because I'm
difficult, but because I want to re-examine it all with a clean slate. (And
yes, I've probably mixed few metaphors there!)
I haven't rejected the precontract out of hand, but there are a lot of
questions in my head. I don't think my view will (or can) ever be that the
marriage didn't take place, because of the whole difficulty of proving a
negative. The lack of details makes it difficult to either wholly prove or
entirely disprove. I've been quite hard on myself over this, having to let
go of a lot things I thought I knew. I think Richard was a decent man,
definitely flawed, as you say, who probably did come to the decision to take
the throne with difficulty.
I'm sure there's a lot we agree on.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Karen,
So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually
don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think
we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think
Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of
his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect
for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor
was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater
than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some
here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just
have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason.
Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before
ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed
too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
>
> Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
>
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary
>
> My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> me.
>
> Karen
>
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
> >
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> Karen
> Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > wish this story would die quietly.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > document till today......
> > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
and
> > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> archer
> > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > G
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...
>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until
> > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
>
>
> > @...>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> >
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This one still works
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To: "@...
>
>
> >
> > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky
TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> 9&fe
> > ature=results_video
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
>
>
> > >
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > >
> > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
not
> > Tony Robinson.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> g-in
> > -the-car-park
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>
> > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
Times
> > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
makes
> > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> head.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Liz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the
> > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > >>>> Paul
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:36:28
Hi Karen,
Just a couple of things.
Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be? Hilary
PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe we needed to get to that point before we could draw breath and move
> on. There's no need for you to apologise. I may not be explaining myself
> well, which could be coming across as a little brusque and dismissive. It's
> not intended to.
>
> I don't have a PhD, but nearly twenty years in academia have had an
> influence on how I think and write. Defending a point of view, and expecting
> others to do the same, is part of that. I tend to look at things fairly
> holistically and I apply Occam's Razor wherever possible. I do have an open
> mind and I don't have an agenda. Or not one that isn't out there in the
> open. I want to find out about Richard without first subscribing to any
> preconceived notions. I did have them once, but the more I read about and
> discussed him, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was that those
> notions (as a whole) were sustainable. So I'm gong to question and I'm going
> to doubt. And I'm going to question and doubt the assertions made by those
> writers who believe Richard wholly guilty of every crime laid at his door as
> well as those writers who believe him wholly innocent. As I've said before,
> I'm pretty sure I'll find the truth somewhere between these two.
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
> to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
> implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
> supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
> about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
> know that he knew.
>
> Secondly, the relationship between the Warwicks and the countess's half
> sisters wasn't nearly close enough for Eleanor to be mistaken as a member of
> his family. Now I know that women maintained all kinds of relationships with
> each other, despite being on opposite sides and even despite having husbands
> who were at each other's throats. Close family members also managed to
> maintain cordial relations in difficult circumstances. Henry Fitzhugh and
> his sister, Joan (and her husband, Lord Scrope of Bolton) were involved in a
> bitter legal dispute for many years over some land in York without that
> spilling into their personal relationships. So, the Warwicks may well have
> felt warmly towards Eleanor. If they did, then that makes the question "If
> Warwick knew, why was he silent?" even more pressing.
>
> You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
> Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
> plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
> the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
> events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
> can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
> they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward.
>
> You mentioned in another post that Edward wasn't stupid enough to misbehave
> in Warwick's house. The Vergil passage has been interpreted as Edward
> deflowering one of Warwick's daughters and I agree, this is highly unlikely.
> A woman 'in the earl's house' doesn't have to be a family member. She might
> have been a member of the household who caught Edward's eye. And it needn't
> have been a deflowering, or anything close to it. It might have been
> harmless flirtation. Given Warwick's likely state of mind when he defected
> from Edward, and given the ease with which he seems to have been 'outraged',
> and given his opinion of Edward as (iirc) recorded by Louis XI, all that
> would be needed was something like "And he can't even keep his hands off the
> women in my house!" for that to be taken as something more serious. I am
> totally speculating here, of course. But Warwick's likely response and
> reaction to a (possible) minor indiscretion of Edward's isn't far off the
> mark. There's evidence to suggest that he was quite prudish and didn't
> approve of extra-marital goings on. (I suspect he was soundly chastised for
> his own indiscretion in or around Carlisle that resulted in his daughter,
> Margaret, which seems likely to me to have occurred when he was around 17.)
> His edict in Calais that all the men who had 'girlfriends' should either end
> it or marry them is strongly suggestive of a prudish streak. ('prude' is
> such a pejorative word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.)
> His own marriage would seem to have been strong and, after Margaret, there's
> not a breath of a whisper of infidelity.
>
> My interpretation might well be way off beam. But the application of Occam's
> Razor to the question 'who and what does that passage refer to?' leads me to
> that interpretation. As I said at the start of this, the answer 'Eleanor
> Butler' would require me to jump through too many hoops and change almost
> every word in that passage to fit the story. Which is not to accuse anyone
> who does think it might refer to Eleanor as jumping through mental hoops &c.
> Looking at it logically, it just doesn't work for me.
>
> Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
> kind of sense.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:01:37 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal
> remarks.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your
> disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your
> posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not
> convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion
> (which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also
> mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and
> a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard
> to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was
> taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you
> regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
>
> I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and
> respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree"
> doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no
> more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Just a couple of things.
Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be? Hilary
PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Maybe we needed to get to that point before we could draw breath and move
> on. There's no need for you to apologise. I may not be explaining myself
> well, which could be coming across as a little brusque and dismissive. It's
> not intended to.
>
> I don't have a PhD, but nearly twenty years in academia have had an
> influence on how I think and write. Defending a point of view, and expecting
> others to do the same, is part of that. I tend to look at things fairly
> holistically and I apply Occam's Razor wherever possible. I do have an open
> mind and I don't have an agenda. Or not one that isn't out there in the
> open. I want to find out about Richard without first subscribing to any
> preconceived notions. I did have them once, but the more I read about and
> discussed him, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was that those
> notions (as a whole) were sustainable. So I'm gong to question and I'm going
> to doubt. And I'm going to question and doubt the assertions made by those
> writers who believe Richard wholly guilty of every crime laid at his door as
> well as those writers who believe him wholly innocent. As I've said before,
> I'm pretty sure I'll find the truth somewhere between these two.
>
> An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
> to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
> implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
> supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
> about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
> know that he knew.
>
> Secondly, the relationship between the Warwicks and the countess's half
> sisters wasn't nearly close enough for Eleanor to be mistaken as a member of
> his family. Now I know that women maintained all kinds of relationships with
> each other, despite being on opposite sides and even despite having husbands
> who were at each other's throats. Close family members also managed to
> maintain cordial relations in difficult circumstances. Henry Fitzhugh and
> his sister, Joan (and her husband, Lord Scrope of Bolton) were involved in a
> bitter legal dispute for many years over some land in York without that
> spilling into their personal relationships. So, the Warwicks may well have
> felt warmly towards Eleanor. If they did, then that makes the question "If
> Warwick knew, why was he silent?" even more pressing.
>
> You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
> Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
> plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
> the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
> events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
> can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
> they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward.
>
> You mentioned in another post that Edward wasn't stupid enough to misbehave
> in Warwick's house. The Vergil passage has been interpreted as Edward
> deflowering one of Warwick's daughters and I agree, this is highly unlikely.
> A woman 'in the earl's house' doesn't have to be a family member. She might
> have been a member of the household who caught Edward's eye. And it needn't
> have been a deflowering, or anything close to it. It might have been
> harmless flirtation. Given Warwick's likely state of mind when he defected
> from Edward, and given the ease with which he seems to have been 'outraged',
> and given his opinion of Edward as (iirc) recorded by Louis XI, all that
> would be needed was something like "And he can't even keep his hands off the
> women in my house!" for that to be taken as something more serious. I am
> totally speculating here, of course. But Warwick's likely response and
> reaction to a (possible) minor indiscretion of Edward's isn't far off the
> mark. There's evidence to suggest that he was quite prudish and didn't
> approve of extra-marital goings on. (I suspect he was soundly chastised for
> his own indiscretion in or around Carlisle that resulted in his daughter,
> Margaret, which seems likely to me to have occurred when he was around 17.)
> His edict in Calais that all the men who had 'girlfriends' should either end
> it or marry them is strongly suggestive of a prudish streak. ('prude' is
> such a pejorative word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.)
> His own marriage would seem to have been strong and, after Margaret, there's
> not a breath of a whisper of infidelity.
>
> My interpretation might well be way off beam. But the application of Occam's
> Razor to the question 'who and what does that passage refer to?' leads me to
> that interpretation. As I said at the start of this, the answer 'Eleanor
> Butler' would require me to jump through too many hoops and change almost
> every word in that passage to fit the story. Which is not to accuse anyone
> who does think it might refer to Eleanor as jumping through mental hoops &c.
> Looking at it logically, it just doesn't work for me.
>
> Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
> kind of sense.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:01:37 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol, I'm not going to respond in depth to anything that contains personal
> remarks.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Karen, my sincere apologies, but you did ask why I believed that your
> disagreement was personal and I tried to indicate certain tendencies in your
> posts that lead to that conclusion. I also tried to explain that I'm not
> convinced of anything and am just trying to have an intelligent discussion
> (which involves an open mind and give and take on both sides). I also
> mentioned my personal preferences in a discussion (a fondness for detail and
> a penchant for analysis) which were not meant to imply anything with regard
> to you, only to describe me. (It's the PhD, you know; that's how I was
> taught to think and write.) Shall we try again? You can ignore anything you
> regard as personal and just respond to the topic itself.
>
> I really am not convinced of anything and just want you to look at and
> respond to my ideas without rejecting them out of hand. ("I disagree"
> doesn't move the discussion forward. It just asserts an opinion that's no
> more debatable than "I love/hate licorice.")
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:43:03
Thanks Karen,
There's another point we agree on which is that to discover more about the person you have to look at people around them. This period is full of so many stereotypes created through the ages that it really is difficult to see the wood from the trees.
That's why I live in hope that if we discover anything new it will come from these people, not the primary subject. And that's why I still think there could be something 'lurking' in a will, in an archive, in a County Record Office.
My vision of Richard is that if you walked into E's Court he'd be the one you'd find it hardest to get to know - but when you did get to know him he'd be very worth knowing!
Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> A great deal of any discussion about Richard is bound to be speculative,
> it's the nature of things. I have Hicks' Richard III book but haven't read
> it thoroughly as yet, so I can't comment on that. I do agree with you about
> his Anne Nevill book. While bits of it are useful, I wonder what editorial
> pressure he might have been under to sex it up. His Warwick book is more
> than sound, though. I bought Kendall's originally and, some years later, got
> hold of Hicks and, more recently, Pollard. I'd recommend either of them
> before Kendall.
>
> At the moment, the Nevills are very much my focus. It's an interesting
> position to be in, I've stepped back a lot, hoping to get a wider view of
> things. I used to hold a fairly standard Ricardian view but have
> deliberately set that aside and am questioning just about everything, not
> because I've shifted to a more 'traditionalist' stance, or because I'm
> difficult, but because I want to re-examine it all with a clean slate. (And
> yes, I've probably mixed few metaphors there!)
>
> I haven't rejected the precontract out of hand, but there are a lot of
> questions in my head. I don't think my view will (or can) ever be that the
> marriage didn't take place, because of the whole difficulty of proving a
> negative. The lack of details makes it difficult to either wholly prove or
> entirely disprove. I've been quite hard on myself over this, having to let
> go of a lot things I thought I knew. I think Richard was a decent man,
> definitely flawed, as you say, who probably did come to the decision to take
> the throne with difficulty.
>
> I'm sure there's a lot we agree on.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:41 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
>
> I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually
> don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think
> we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
>
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think
> Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of
> his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect
> for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor
> was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater
> than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some
> here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just
> have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason.
> Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before
> ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed
> too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
>
> So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> > it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> > details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> > close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> > neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> > a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> > putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
> >
> > Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> > well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> > coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> > acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> > heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> > family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> > in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> > her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> > an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> > brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> > she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> > interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
> "
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> > 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> > when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> > bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> > In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> > son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> > throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> > of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> > Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> > actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> > on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> > George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> > Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> > cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> > >
> > To:
>
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> > with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> > mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> > Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> > rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@ >
> > Reply-To:
>
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
>
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> > (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> > negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> > think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> > Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> > was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> > archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> >
> > >
> > To:
>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> > a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> > Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> > me.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@
> > >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> > To: "
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen
> > Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> > connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> >
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > > wish this story would die quietly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@ >
> > > Reply-To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > > To: "
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > > document till today......
> > > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
> and
> > > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> > archer
> > > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > > G
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until
> > > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@
> >
> >
> > > @...>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This one still works
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "@
> >
> >
> > >
> > > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky
> TV,
> > > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> > 9&fe
> > > ature=results_video
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: fletcher_kate@
> > > > > To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not
> > > Tony Robinson.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> >
> >
> > > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In
>
> >
> >
> > > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times
> > > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > >>> Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes
> > > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> > head.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Liz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the
> > > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > >>>> Paul
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There's another point we agree on which is that to discover more about the person you have to look at people around them. This period is full of so many stereotypes created through the ages that it really is difficult to see the wood from the trees.
That's why I live in hope that if we discover anything new it will come from these people, not the primary subject. And that's why I still think there could be something 'lurking' in a will, in an archive, in a County Record Office.
My vision of Richard is that if you walked into E's Court he'd be the one you'd find it hardest to get to know - but when you did get to know him he'd be very worth knowing!
Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> A great deal of any discussion about Richard is bound to be speculative,
> it's the nature of things. I have Hicks' Richard III book but haven't read
> it thoroughly as yet, so I can't comment on that. I do agree with you about
> his Anne Nevill book. While bits of it are useful, I wonder what editorial
> pressure he might have been under to sex it up. His Warwick book is more
> than sound, though. I bought Kendall's originally and, some years later, got
> hold of Hicks and, more recently, Pollard. I'd recommend either of them
> before Kendall.
>
> At the moment, the Nevills are very much my focus. It's an interesting
> position to be in, I've stepped back a lot, hoping to get a wider view of
> things. I used to hold a fairly standard Ricardian view but have
> deliberately set that aside and am questioning just about everything, not
> because I've shifted to a more 'traditionalist' stance, or because I'm
> difficult, but because I want to re-examine it all with a clean slate. (And
> yes, I've probably mixed few metaphors there!)
>
> I haven't rejected the precontract out of hand, but there are a lot of
> questions in my head. I don't think my view will (or can) ever be that the
> marriage didn't take place, because of the whole difficulty of proving a
> negative. The lack of details makes it difficult to either wholly prove or
> entirely disprove. I've been quite hard on myself over this, having to let
> go of a lot things I thought I knew. I think Richard was a decent man,
> definitely flawed, as you say, who probably did come to the decision to take
> the throne with difficulty.
>
> I'm sure there's a lot we agree on.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:41 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> So sorry to flip in and out of this but have been working.
>
> I did say at the start there were things I/we don't know. I for one actually
> don't buy into the Edward illegitimacy theory without more proof so I think
> we agree on that. I was citing rumours, not truth.
>
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think
> Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of
> his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect
> for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor
> was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater
> than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some
> here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just
> have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason.
> Some would have done, there's no doubt, and had set aside their 'kin' before
> ie Bolingbroke, but I think one of R's flaws is that he probably obsessed
> too far about doing the right thing, which in the end caused his downfall.
>
> So we at least half agree? Enjoy the debate. Cheers Hilary
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > Do you have a source for Cecily's outburst? I keep coming across mention of
> > it without having seen the source, or having seen it once and forgotten the
> > details. As to Kendall, sadly I don't rate his biography of Warwick anywhere
> > close to Hicks' or Pollard's. I've just had a quick look through both, and
> > neither mention earlier rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. Does Kendall have
> > a source for this? (I can't find anything on p 243). I find his tendency of
> > putting thoughts into people's heads a little irritating.
> >
> > Cecily is a most intriguing woman, as you say, and quite ruthless. She may
> > well have lashed out at her son for his extraordinary marriage to EW. I keep
> > coming back to two factors, though: the Duke of York's implicit
> > acknowledgement of Edward as his son and heir, in a time when the laws of
> > heredity were hugely important and no man would considering 'tainting' his
> > family line with his wife's illegitimate offspring; and Cecily's statements
> > in her will that Edward was the lawful son of her husband. The reasons for
> > her visit to Sandwich are variously given (in various secondary sources) as:
> > an attempt to stop the wedding; an attempt to win Clarence back to his
> > brother's side; a sign of approval for Warwick and Clarence's actions; and,
> > she was the simply there as mother of the groom. All very sound
> > interpretations but they don't get us any closer to the 'truth'.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
> "
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > In Kendall's 'Warwick' (p243) he says that Warwick (and Clarence) were in
> > 1470 'reviving not inventing rumour'. To summarise he claims that in 1464
> > when E 'shocked his subjects by marrying EW ' the slander of E being a
> > bastard had been given as an explanation of the King's 'unlikely choice' (!)
> > In the surf of the gossip rode the lurid tale that the DOY learned of her
> > son's marriage, fell into a deep frenzy and cried he was unworthy of the
> > throne because she had conceived him in adultery and offered to submit proof
> > of his bastardy to a public enquiry.
> > Now this, like you say, could have been the 'surf of the gossip' but Cis
> > actually visited Warwick and Clarence in Sandwich while all this was going
> > on and before they sailed for France, some say to give her blessing to the
> > George/Isabel marriage (Isabel was her goddaughter) and also perhaps to win
> > Warwick, or at least Clarence back. So it's intriguing. She didn't seem too
> > cross about the 'lurid tale'. I think Cis is a very intriguing lady.
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> > >
> > To:
>
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 12:37
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary
> >
> > My understanding is that it was originally put about by Warwick and Clarence
> > with suggestions that Cecily used it herself later, though in her will she
> > mentions several times that Edward was the lawful son of her husband.
> > Warwick wasn't above using rumour as weapon. York, himself, used similar
> > rumours about Margaret of Anjou earlier in the piece.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@ >
> > Reply-To:
>
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:12:31 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
>
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > I think you'll find that Kendall says that Cis put the rumour about herself
> > (yes!) because she was so cross when Ed ignored her and Warwick's
> > negotiations for his marriage with Bona of Savoy and married EW instead. I
> > think she just said he was illegitimate in a fit of extreme pique - the
> > Rouen stuff has come to light since and is of course open to question. There
> > was quite a bit of rumour extant though about her supposed fling with an
> > archer called Blaybourne 'Proud Cis and the archer' Cheers Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> >
> > >
> > To:
>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 11:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > I watched it some time ago, George. I can't remember anything specific about
> > a 'French connection'. I do remember they used the relative modesty of
> > Edward's christening as evidence, which didn't go any way towards convincing
> > me.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@
> > >
> > Reply-To:
>
> >
> > >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:43 -0500
> > To: "
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Karen
> > Have you watched the program and seen the information about the "French
> > connection" found in the cathedral at Rouen?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@
> >
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There is absolutely no evidence that Edward IV was illegitimate. Even if his
> > > father had tolerated the presence of an illegitimate son of the duchess's in
> > > his household, he would never have treated him as his own son. No nobleman
> > > of his time (or any time, probably) would consider allowing another man's
> > > child to inherit his property and titles. Edward IV was very much treated as
> > > the Duke's son and heir. It was a vicious political rumour put about by
> > > Edward's enemies, and yet another slight on the morals of a woman. I really
> > > wish this story would die quietly.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@ >
> > > Reply-To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:18:25 -0500
> > > To: "
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Now, does it really mean Ed was illegitimate? I have never heard of this
> > > document till today......
> > > The doc also says R killed the boys!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The program ended with the disclosure of a document found in Rouen by a
> > > researcher, that places the father as being away in battle at the time of
> > > conception. It goes on to state that though the family trait was for short
> and
> > > slight sons H appears to have been tall and muscular not unlike a French
> > archer
> > > who was known in Rouen at the time!!!
> > > > G
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@
> >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until
> > > the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@
> >
> >
> > > @...>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > > think about the likelihood of Ed being illegitimate?
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This one still works
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: david rayner theblackprussian@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To: "@
> >
> >
> > >
> > > @yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky
> TV,
> > > can anyone watch this now?:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB90
> > 9&fe
> > > ature=results_video
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: fletcher_kate@
> > > > > To:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not
> > > Tony Robinson.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-kin
> > g-in
> > > -the-car-park
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> >
> >
> > > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In
>
> >
> >
> > > , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times
> > > and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > >>> Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes
> > > Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his
> > head.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Liz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > >>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > >>>> Subject: Documentary
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the
> > > 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > >>>> I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > >>>> Paul
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 15:58:39
Hilary
One of the intriguing things I've found in my research into the Nevills is
that, until 1459, their alliance with York was neither particularly solid
nor permanent. They had a mutual need of each other during York's first
Protectorate, York needing support in Council and the Nevills needing help
with their feud with the Percies, which had got seriously out of hand. Over
the next few years, 1st St Albans is really the only time they came together
again in any meaningful way. There's an intriguing letter from Salisbury
that I blogged about some time ago that, I think, strengthens the notion
that, at the time it was written, Salisbury didn't feel himself to be
irrevocably tied to York.
http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/letter-from-the-earl-of-salisbur
y-to-the-prior-of-erdebury/
It was only after Blore Heath and the charges of treason against York and
the Nevills that they crossed the Rubicon and became, politically and
otherwise, dependent on each other. Henry VI was prepared to offer York and
his followers terns, but that wasn't to apply to the Nevills, including the
countess of Salisbury. York might be given surety of his life, but his
in-laws weren't. Salisbury survived the battle of Wakefield (at which his
son, Thomas, and a son-in-law were killed as well as York and Rutland) only
to be lynched at Pontefract.
I wonder, sometimes, if the deaths of his father, brother and sister's
husband in York's cause, put alongside his growing disaffection not only
with Edward but his kingship, didn't rankle with Warwick quite bitterly.
Warwick was a reformer and Edward proved, in the end, not to be. I wonder if
he felt that two people he loved died for the wrong cause. While there's no
way of proving this, I don't think Edward, and possibly Richard, would have
been allowed to keep their heads had Warwick won Barnet.
As to John's 'torn loyalties', I've blogged about that, as well. Personally,
I think it's overstated. John was quite a ruthless headkicker, quick
tempered and fully at home in a good stoush. While he had help from his
brother, Thomas, from time to time, essentially he held up the Nevill side
of the Nevill/Percy feud singlehanded. The 'gentle' John I come across in
some works of fiction leaves me scratching my head. I've come to really like
the John I've been discovering. At the moment, my main focus is Thomas, the
most obscure Nevill of them all who really doesn't deserve his obscurity.
Part of the reason I joined this forum was that I have something to offer. I
know most people's major concern is Richard, but he operated within a wider
arena than just his reign. I don't pretend to be any kind of Nevill expert,
but I've come to know quite a bit over the last few years.
Holding differing views and being able to discuss, or debate, them is
extremely healthy. If all I hear are views that coincide with mine, I worry
that I'm getting a little stuck. I rather like being shaken up from time to
time.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:01:14 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being
'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his
father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at
it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their
disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't
like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court
after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off
the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering -
discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?),
misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to
teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here
with mimumum damage.
As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold
differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very
boring! Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
>
> Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in
public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to
object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended
and objected.
> The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible.
Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again.
Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to
ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary said:
>
> "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
>
> And
>
> "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> heirs."
>
> Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> yet.
>
> Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> actions, motives and reasons.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
>
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with
Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly
with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe,
but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to
Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and
EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes
sense
> to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
One of the intriguing things I've found in my research into the Nevills is
that, until 1459, their alliance with York was neither particularly solid
nor permanent. They had a mutual need of each other during York's first
Protectorate, York needing support in Council and the Nevills needing help
with their feud with the Percies, which had got seriously out of hand. Over
the next few years, 1st St Albans is really the only time they came together
again in any meaningful way. There's an intriguing letter from Salisbury
that I blogged about some time ago that, I think, strengthens the notion
that, at the time it was written, Salisbury didn't feel himself to be
irrevocably tied to York.
http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/letter-from-the-earl-of-salisbur
y-to-the-prior-of-erdebury/
It was only after Blore Heath and the charges of treason against York and
the Nevills that they crossed the Rubicon and became, politically and
otherwise, dependent on each other. Henry VI was prepared to offer York and
his followers terns, but that wasn't to apply to the Nevills, including the
countess of Salisbury. York might be given surety of his life, but his
in-laws weren't. Salisbury survived the battle of Wakefield (at which his
son, Thomas, and a son-in-law were killed as well as York and Rutland) only
to be lynched at Pontefract.
I wonder, sometimes, if the deaths of his father, brother and sister's
husband in York's cause, put alongside his growing disaffection not only
with Edward but his kingship, didn't rankle with Warwick quite bitterly.
Warwick was a reformer and Edward proved, in the end, not to be. I wonder if
he felt that two people he loved died for the wrong cause. While there's no
way of proving this, I don't think Edward, and possibly Richard, would have
been allowed to keep their heads had Warwick won Barnet.
As to John's 'torn loyalties', I've blogged about that, as well. Personally,
I think it's overstated. John was quite a ruthless headkicker, quick
tempered and fully at home in a good stoush. While he had help from his
brother, Thomas, from time to time, essentially he held up the Nevill side
of the Nevill/Percy feud singlehanded. The 'gentle' John I come across in
some works of fiction leaves me scratching my head. I've come to really like
the John I've been discovering. At the moment, my main focus is Thomas, the
most obscure Nevill of them all who really doesn't deserve his obscurity.
Part of the reason I joined this forum was that I have something to offer. I
know most people's major concern is Richard, but he operated within a wider
arena than just his reign. I don't pretend to be any kind of Nevill expert,
but I've come to know quite a bit over the last few years.
Holding differing views and being able to discuss, or debate, them is
extremely healthy. If all I hear are views that coincide with mine, I worry
that I'm getting a little stuck. I rather like being shaken up from time to
time.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:01:14 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being
'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his
father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at
it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their
disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't
like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court
after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off
the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering -
discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?),
misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to
teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here
with mimumum damage.
As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold
differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very
boring! Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> "And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
>
> Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in
public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to
object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended
and objected.
> The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible.
Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again.
Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to
ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary said:
>
> "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
>
> And
>
> "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> heirs."
>
> Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> yet.
>
> Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> actions, motives and reasons.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
> At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> enigma.
>
> I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
>
> a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> wasn't known for holding back?)
> b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> but George was always restless.
> c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> under Edward, that's reasonable)
> e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> George 'protected' him
> The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
>
> But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> "
>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
> Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> silence does not make sense.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
>
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with
Eleanor
> > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly
with
> > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> >
> > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe,
but
> > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > >
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > surviving manifestos.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > >
> > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> >
> > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to
Elizabeth
> > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and
EW.
> > >
> > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes
sense
> to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-29 16:00:09
If anyone's at all interested in Edward II, Kathryn Warner has an excellent
blog on the subject.
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com.au/
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:23:55 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was
Documentary)
Hi Judy,
There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of
EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but
in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others)
that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the
face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to
believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there
was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but
Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer
James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up
marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But
some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for
why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could
give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I
can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily
ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been
intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather
than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
blog on the subject.
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com.au/
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:23:55 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was
Documentary)
Hi Judy,
There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of
EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but
in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others)
that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the
face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to
believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> An historian friend, whose expertise is centered on R II, once told me there
was a rumour following the king's death: his body-double was assassinated, but
Richard (Divine Right of Kings/Your Majesty) escaped and disappeared. Writer
James Branch Cabell based one of his stories on this notion; R II ends up
marrying someone (a milkmaid?) and living a quiet life in the countryside. But
some people apparently believed the rumour credible,..it might help account for
why Henry took such great care, bringing the body back to London from Pomfret.
>
> Elvis, anyone?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: P BARRETT
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
>
>
> Â
> "Would Richard have lost Middleham, et. al. and ended up living in a
> stone cottage, married to some knight's youngest daughter and raising a
> slew of happy little commoners?"
>
> Not this one - he was a man of his time and would have wanted a wife who could
give him land as well as heirs
>
> "Would Richard have married EW at E5's order, moved to London, and...ugh, I
can't go on."
>
> Or this - perish the thought!
>
> "Would Richard have retreated to a monastery, taken vows, and lived happily
ever after? "
>
> Maybe this - there has been some suggestion that, as 4th son, he may have been
intended for the Church. But I think he would have gone for Archbishop rather
than humble monk. He could have replaced Morton!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 16:21:35
Hilary
Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
half-sisters.
If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
position.
I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
Warwick any old time.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
Just a couple of things.
Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
Hilary
PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
half-sisters.
If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
position.
I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
Warwick any old time.
Karen
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi Karen,
Just a couple of things.
Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
Hilary
PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 16:33:51
Karen, Hilary,
I am learning so much because of the depth of the debates here. All of you argue with solid knowledge( of what we have under the circumstances) to back it up and it is great for novices like myself!
The fact that we differ in our views is a bonus! As Hilary said in another post, Richard was far from perfect. But what an intriguing man. And truly by examining people around him and their reaction to him can we get close to him!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Hilary
>
> One of the intriguing things I've found in my research into the Nevills is
> that, until 1459, their alliance with York was neither particularly solid
> nor permanent. They had a mutual need of each other during York's first
> Protectorate, York needing support in Council and the Nevills needing help
> with their feud with the Percies, which had got seriously out of hand. Over
> the next few years, 1st St Albans is really the only time they came together
> again in any meaningful way. There's an intriguing letter from Salisbury
> that I blogged about some time ago that, I think, strengthens the notion
> that, at the time it was written, Salisbury didn't feel himself to be
> irrevocably tied to York.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/letter-from-the-earl-of-salisbur
> y-to-the-prior-of-erdebury/
>
> It was only after Blore Heath and the charges of treason against York and
> the Nevills that they crossed the Rubicon and became, politically and
> otherwise, dependent on each other. Henry VI was prepared to offer York and
> his followers terns, but that wasn't to apply to the Nevills, including the
> countess of Salisbury. York might be given surety of his life, but his
> in-laws weren't. Salisbury survived the battle of Wakefield (at which his
> son, Thomas, and a son-in-law were killed as well as York and Rutland) only
> to be lynched at Pontefract.
>
> I wonder, sometimes, if the deaths of his father, brother and sister's
> husband in York's cause, put alongside his growing disaffection not only
> with Edward but his kingship, didn't rankle with Warwick quite bitterly.
> Warwick was a reformer and Edward proved, in the end, not to be. I wonder if
> he felt that two people he loved died for the wrong cause. While there's no
> way of proving this, I don't think Edward, and possibly Richard, would have
> been allowed to keep their heads had Warwick won Barnet.
>
> As to John's 'torn loyalties', I've blogged about that, as well. Personally,
> I think it's overstated. John was quite a ruthless headkicker, quick
> tempered and fully at home in a good stoush. While he had help from his
> brother, Thomas, from time to time, essentially he held up the Nevill side
> of the Nevill/Percy feud singlehanded. The 'gentle' John I come across in
> some works of fiction leaves me scratching my head. I've come to really like
> the John I've been discovering. At the moment, my main focus is Thomas, the
> most obscure Nevill of them all who really doesn't deserve his obscurity.
>
> Part of the reason I joined this forum was that I have something to offer. I
> know most people's major concern is Richard, but he operated within a wider
> arena than just his reign. I don't pretend to be any kind of Nevill expert,
> but I've come to know quite a bit over the last few years.
>
> Holding differing views and being able to discuss, or debate, them is
> extremely healthy. If all I hear are views that coincide with mine, I worry
> that I'm getting a little stuck. I rather like being shaken up from time to
> time.
>
> Karen
>
> From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:01:14 -0000
> To: >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being
> 'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
>
> Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his
> father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at
> it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their
> disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't
> like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court
> after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off
> the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering -
> discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?),
> misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to
> teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here
> with mimumum damage.
>
> As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold
> differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very
> boring! Hilary
>
> --- In
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > "And yes! Edward and
> > Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> > instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
> >
> > Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in
> public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to
> object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended
> and objected.
> > The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible.
> Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again.
> Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to
> ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Karen Clark
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> > dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> > apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> > English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> > magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> > Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> > was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
> >
> > And
> >
> > "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> > Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> > Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> > given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> > heirs."
> >
> > Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> > brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> > hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> > Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> > instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> > That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> > about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> > joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> > yet.
> >
> > Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> > Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> > heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> > changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> > been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> > says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> > life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> > objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> > one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> > little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> > actions, motives and reasons.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
> "
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> > George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> > seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> > course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> > simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> > him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> > inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> > enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> > 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> > wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> > Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> > but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> > dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> > apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> > English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> > magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> > Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> > was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> > would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> > under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> > George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> > Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> > day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> > the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> > marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> > died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> > Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> > Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> > have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > To: "
>
> > "
> >
>
> > >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> > kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> > coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> > silence does not make sense.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > To:
> >
> "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> > yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with
> Eleanor
> > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly
> with
> > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > >
> > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe,
> but
> > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > >
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > surviving manifestos.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > >
> > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to
> Elizabeth
> > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and
> EW.
> > > >
> > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes
> sense
> > to
> > > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I am learning so much because of the depth of the debates here. All of you argue with solid knowledge( of what we have under the circumstances) to back it up and it is great for novices like myself!
The fact that we differ in our views is a bonus! As Hilary said in another post, Richard was far from perfect. But what an intriguing man. And truly by examining people around him and their reaction to him can we get close to him!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> Hilary
>
> One of the intriguing things I've found in my research into the Nevills is
> that, until 1459, their alliance with York was neither particularly solid
> nor permanent. They had a mutual need of each other during York's first
> Protectorate, York needing support in Council and the Nevills needing help
> with their feud with the Percies, which had got seriously out of hand. Over
> the next few years, 1st St Albans is really the only time they came together
> again in any meaningful way. There's an intriguing letter from Salisbury
> that I blogged about some time ago that, I think, strengthens the notion
> that, at the time it was written, Salisbury didn't feel himself to be
> irrevocably tied to York.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/letter-from-the-earl-of-salisbur
> y-to-the-prior-of-erdebury/
>
> It was only after Blore Heath and the charges of treason against York and
> the Nevills that they crossed the Rubicon and became, politically and
> otherwise, dependent on each other. Henry VI was prepared to offer York and
> his followers terns, but that wasn't to apply to the Nevills, including the
> countess of Salisbury. York might be given surety of his life, but his
> in-laws weren't. Salisbury survived the battle of Wakefield (at which his
> son, Thomas, and a son-in-law were killed as well as York and Rutland) only
> to be lynched at Pontefract.
>
> I wonder, sometimes, if the deaths of his father, brother and sister's
> husband in York's cause, put alongside his growing disaffection not only
> with Edward but his kingship, didn't rankle with Warwick quite bitterly.
> Warwick was a reformer and Edward proved, in the end, not to be. I wonder if
> he felt that two people he loved died for the wrong cause. While there's no
> way of proving this, I don't think Edward, and possibly Richard, would have
> been allowed to keep their heads had Warwick won Barnet.
>
> As to John's 'torn loyalties', I've blogged about that, as well. Personally,
> I think it's overstated. John was quite a ruthless headkicker, quick
> tempered and fully at home in a good stoush. While he had help from his
> brother, Thomas, from time to time, essentially he held up the Nevill side
> of the Nevill/Percy feud singlehanded. The 'gentle' John I come across in
> some works of fiction leaves me scratching my head. I've come to really like
> the John I've been discovering. At the moment, my main focus is Thomas, the
> most obscure Nevill of them all who really doesn't deserve his obscurity.
>
> Part of the reason I joined this forum was that I have something to offer. I
> know most people's major concern is Richard, but he operated within a wider
> arena than just his reign. I don't pretend to be any kind of Nevill expert,
> but I've come to know quite a bit over the last few years.
>
> Holding differing views and being able to discuss, or debate, them is
> extremely healthy. If all I hear are views that coincide with mine, I worry
> that I'm getting a little stuck. I rather like being shaken up from time to
> time.
>
> Karen
>
> From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:01:14 -0000
> To: >
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being
> 'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
>
> Karen, where I have problems with Warwick 'switching camp' is that his
> father, Cis's brother, died at Wakefield with ROY. Whichever way you look at
> it the York/Neville tie seems to have been strong, despite all their
> disagreements, think of Montague and his torn loyalites. Yes, Warwick didn't
> like the Woodvilles (neither I guess did Cis as she 'retreated' from Court
> after the marriage) and wasn't beyond a bit of petty revenge like taking off
> the odd head. But in the last months he seems to have been floundering -
> discarding George, courting Margaret (or was he really courting Louis?),
> misreading the London merchants. I see him much more as just wanting to
> teach young cousin Eddie a lesson - and finding a way to get back over here
> with mimumum damage.
>
> As I said in my first post, it's all interesting speculation and we hold
> differing views. It's good that we do, otherwise it would all get very
> boring! Hilary
>
> --- In
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > "And yes! Edward and
> > Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> > instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death"
> >
> > Sorry, Karen, this is just not a possibility. If Edward and EW had married in
> public, in a church, those present would have been given an opportunity to
> object, by the priest. Anyone knowing of the pre-contract could have attended
> and objected.
> > The EW "marriage" happened, as we know, in secret so this wasn't possible.
> Canon law would have precluded them from marrying each other ever again.
> Medieval canon law is very strict - this is not Mick Jagger going off to Bali to
> ensure that his marriage is invalid and prevent a divorce in future.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Karen Clark
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > "c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> > dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> > apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> > English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> > magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> > Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> > was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another."
> >
> > And
> >
> > "I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the
> > Woodville marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if
> > Eleanor died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have
> > given Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate
> > heirs."
> >
> > Warwick wasn't above a bit of petty revenge. He had the Queen's father and
> > brother executed unlawfully (and got away with it). I can't see him
> > hesitating to discredit her marriage and queenship. And yes! Edward and
> > Elizabeth's marriage could have been 'regularised' (as Richard was
> > instructed to make sure his marriage to Anne was) after Eleanor's death.
> > That Edward made no move to do this is one of the reasons I have doubts
> > about the precontract. One day, someone might say or write something that
> > joins all the dots and removes all my doubts, but it hasn't happened quite
> > yet.
> >
> > Warwick's reasons for leaving Edward and, eventually, signing up with
> > Margaret of Anjou are very unclear. Pollard allows for a genuine change of
> > heart, taking stock of Edward's reign and realising that nothing had
> > changed, none of the promised reforms had been achieved and he (Warwick) had
> > been involved in deposing a lawful king. Hicks (Warwick the Kingmaker, p297)
> > says this: "This [the readeption] was the supreme achievement of Warwick's
> > life, though unintended. A gradual escalation carried him far beyond his
> > objectives in 1469. To be a Kingmaker was a remarkable distinction, though
> > one reluctantly attained and aspired to never." It's harder to find a neat
> > little quote in Pollard, Part Three of his Warwick biography discusses his
> > actions, motives and reasons.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
> > To: "
> "
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> > At the time of the Warwick/Clarence 'rebellion' Edward did not have a son -
> > George was his heir and Warwick wasn't setting himself up to be king, he
> > seemed to want to control Edward; that is until Edward got away. And of
> > course then he dumped George. I don't know about Warwick, it wasn't that
> > simple, Cis was his aunt, a Neville, and very fond of him (she pleaded for
> > him before Barnet). Katherine Hastings was Warwick's sister - all very
> > inter-related. I did a fair bit of work on this for my book and it is an
> > enigma.
> >
> > I DO believe in the pre-contract but I don't know
> >
> > a) whether EW knew about it - I've not seen anyone say that she did prior to
> > 1483 (Wouldn't she have done something to protect her son if she did - she
> > wasn't known for holding back?)
> > b) whether George found out about it before 1469 or about the time that
> > Isabel died, (Stillington was put in Tower around time of George's arrest)
> > but George was always restless.
> > c) whether Warwick found out from his wife or George and it was just too
> > dangerous so he jumped camp to Margaret of Anjou - why otherwise he did so
> > apart from the fact he'd rebelled, been pirating against the
> > English/Burgundians etc etc has never really been clear. Edward was
> > magnanimous right to the end (Coventry/Barnet) and Warwick was his cousin.
> > Edward, like JFK, had a policy of 'loving his enemies' and Warwick on side
> > was a powerful supporter and I think they genuinely liked one another.
> > d) whether MB or Morton knew - with the spy network you'd have thought they
> > would, but the Lancaster camp never used it (seeing as they were doing well
> > under Edward, that's reasonable)
> > e) whether Richard knew - I do think it was a bombshell in 1483 and if so
> > George 'protected' him
> > The only other rather strange thing I found out recently was that John
> > Mowbray (Norfolk huband of Elizabeth Talbot) died suddenly like Edward; one
> > day perfectly fit (at 31) the next dead. And of course his daughter brought
> > the Mowbray lands to the Crown.
> > I don't really know what Warwick would achieve by discrediting the Woodville
> > marriage (other than revenge for the slight of 1464). In fact, if Eleanor
> > died as supposed in 1468 (though Leslau disagrees), it would have given
> > Edward the chance to marry again as a widower and have legitmate heirs.
> > Warwick was a bright man; he'd have thought that through.
> >
> > But for the rest I honestly dunno. It's very fascinating. I'll ask again
> > have you read Leslau? Cheers Hilary
> > (If sounds terse done in rush as at work!! not meant to be)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@... >
> > To: "
>
> > "
> >
>
> > >
> > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 14:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Warwick had no love lost for the Woodville's. And I doubt if he would have
> > kept quiet for a moment if he knew about the pre-contract. Imagine what a
> > coup that would have been. I am with Karen on this one......Warwick's
> > silence does not make sense.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is still silence. I can think of no reason the countess of
> > > Warwick wouldn't have told her husband and he'd surely have leapt on
> > > something this potentially damaging to Edward.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:09:41 -0800 (PST)
> > > To:
> >
> "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40
> > yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > We think the Countess of Warwick may have known by the late 1460s when she
> > > attended the funeral of her sister Margaret (Eleanor's mother) with
> Eleanor
> > > and Elizabeth (Mowbray/Norfolk), who continued to correspond regularly
> with
> > > her sister. Whether there was 'pillow talk' we don't know as Ed paid out
> > > considerable sums to Sudeley and Mowbray probably to shut them up.
> > >
> > > Have you read Leslau on this as well as Ashdown-Hill? Farfetched maybe,
> but
> > > interesting. Cheers Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com
> > > >
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 2:20
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > The problem with Cecily, or anyone else, knowing about the precontract in
> > > the 1460s is that it doesn't surface, even as rumour. Warwick and Clarence
> > > would most certainly have used it. There's no mention of it in any of the
> > > surviving manifestos.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
> > > >
> > > Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:31:25 -0000
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > Subject: Re: Documentary
> > >
> > > Carol...I suspect you have hit the nail on the head with this...duh..why
> > > didnt I think of it. It makes complete and utter sense...and someone along
> > > the line has twisted it into something else entirely...
> > >
> > > Yes...where is Marie?....Hope she returns soon....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >. My own theory is that her outburst related to his "marriage" to
> Elizabeth
> > > Woodville after his (legal) marriage to Eleanor Talbot Butler and the
> > > illegitimacy she referred to was that of any children born to Edward and
> EW.
> > > >
> > > > I have no proof, of course, but it's the only explanation that makes
> sense
> > to
> > > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 17:12:31
Carol (justcarol67) wrote:
"Oops. Wrong Vergil. Polydore wasn't born yet. By the way, I've heard that
the document burner could have been Cardinal Morton's nephew, Robert, but
can't recall the details. Anyone know anything about that? If it's true,
Vergil had more than the lost Titulus Regius and Tudor pressure to contend
with. He had an absence of information. Not that I'm wholly excusing
Polydore, but it seems that someone destroyed the codicil to Edward's will
appointing Richard as Protector and Richard's own will, and IIRC Robert
Morton was in a position to do it."
re Robert Morton: Secretary to the King's Council? Or some other position of
the same type?
Doug
"Oops. Wrong Vergil. Polydore wasn't born yet. By the way, I've heard that
the document burner could have been Cardinal Morton's nephew, Robert, but
can't recall the details. Anyone know anything about that? If it's true,
Vergil had more than the lost Titulus Regius and Tudor pressure to contend
with. He had an absence of information. Not that I'm wholly excusing
Polydore, but it seems that someone destroyed the codicil to Edward's will
appointing Richard as Protector and Richard's own will, and IIRC Robert
Morton was in a position to do it."
re Robert Morton: Secretary to the King's Council? Or some other position of
the same type?
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 17:20:37
Karen wrote:
> You said: "I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given."
>
> I'm not taking Vergil at his word at all. I don't believe Edward seduced anyone in the Earl's house. You provide a clue, though, when you suggest I'm not as 'leery' of Vergil as you are. Perhaps I'm not 'leery' in quite the same way you are.
Carol responds:
Sorry about the careless wording. I didn't mean to imply that you took Vergil at his word. But you're right that I'm probably more leery of him than you are. Remember Hamlet's words regarding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: "I trust them as I would adders fanged?" That's how I feel about Vergil though, of course, he's dangerous in a different way. (I don't approve of Hamlet's handling of the matter, but let's not get into that!)
Karne:
> We might never find independent evidence of a marriage between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV, but we shouldn't stop looking. Finding it in 'vague rumours' involves (for me) too much manipulation of the text to qualify it as evidence.
Carol responds:
I wasn't thinking of the rumor as evidence. There's enough of that (Titulus Regius, the treatment of Stillington by both Edward IV and Henry VII, Edward's own history, Richard's known character) to persuade me that the precontract story is probably true. I was merely interested in the possibility (by no means proven) that the rumor referred to the marriage and in Vergil's handling of the matter. I wouldn't take anything in Vergil as evidence; he's too untrustworthy. It's his (possible) suppression or distortion of evidence that I'm interested in. Does that clarify matters?
Meanwhile, I'm hoping that others will chime in on the question of whether he burned documents.
Karen:
> Anyway, here's the link:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft#page/n5/mode/2up
Carol responds:
Thanks very much. I've bookmarked it along with the one I found yesterday.
Karen:
> To change the subject for a moment, while I have ordered documents from various libraries and depositories (the National Archives, the Madgalen Library &c) being so far from the UK has forced me to find other sources of information. There is such a lot of primary material online it boggles the mind! Some of it has taken a good deal of hunting, others (like the Vergil book) have simply been a matter of googling and working through the links. Online, I've found just about all the relevant chronicles, rolls of parliament, close rolls, privy council proceedings, some wills, the Paston letters, the Plumpton correspondence and a whole bunch of other things. It's well worth the, sometimes, hours of frustration to finally get to the information you want. I'm always happy to provide links.
Carol responds:
I thought that you needed a subscription to access the rolls of Parliament and privy council proceedings. I'd appreciate a link to a source that doesn't require one. It just occurred to me that I should check out the Links section on this site. Maybe we should all start checking it and posting our links as we find them. Just a thought.
Carol
> You said: "I can't take Vergil at his word given his use of vague rumors, which he then reinterprets, not to mention his agenda, but I can see how someone less leery of him would interpret it as you do (and reject it as a red herring). I don't, for the reasons already given."
>
> I'm not taking Vergil at his word at all. I don't believe Edward seduced anyone in the Earl's house. You provide a clue, though, when you suggest I'm not as 'leery' of Vergil as you are. Perhaps I'm not 'leery' in quite the same way you are.
Carol responds:
Sorry about the careless wording. I didn't mean to imply that you took Vergil at his word. But you're right that I'm probably more leery of him than you are. Remember Hamlet's words regarding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: "I trust them as I would adders fanged?" That's how I feel about Vergil though, of course, he's dangerous in a different way. (I don't approve of Hamlet's handling of the matter, but let's not get into that!)
Karne:
> We might never find independent evidence of a marriage between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV, but we shouldn't stop looking. Finding it in 'vague rumours' involves (for me) too much manipulation of the text to qualify it as evidence.
Carol responds:
I wasn't thinking of the rumor as evidence. There's enough of that (Titulus Regius, the treatment of Stillington by both Edward IV and Henry VII, Edward's own history, Richard's known character) to persuade me that the precontract story is probably true. I was merely interested in the possibility (by no means proven) that the rumor referred to the marriage and in Vergil's handling of the matter. I wouldn't take anything in Vergil as evidence; he's too untrustworthy. It's his (possible) suppression or distortion of evidence that I'm interested in. Does that clarify matters?
Meanwhile, I'm hoping that others will chime in on the question of whether he burned documents.
Karen:
> Anyway, here's the link:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/polydorevergil00camduoft#page/n5/mode/2up
Carol responds:
Thanks very much. I've bookmarked it along with the one I found yesterday.
Karen:
> To change the subject for a moment, while I have ordered documents from various libraries and depositories (the National Archives, the Madgalen Library &c) being so far from the UK has forced me to find other sources of information. There is such a lot of primary material online it boggles the mind! Some of it has taken a good deal of hunting, others (like the Vergil book) have simply been a matter of googling and working through the links. Online, I've found just about all the relevant chronicles, rolls of parliament, close rolls, privy council proceedings, some wills, the Paston letters, the Plumpton correspondence and a whole bunch of other things. It's well worth the, sometimes, hours of frustration to finally get to the information you want. I'm always happy to provide links.
Carol responds:
I thought that you needed a subscription to access the rolls of Parliament and privy council proceedings. I'd appreciate a link to a source that doesn't require one. It just occurred to me that I should check out the Links section on this site. Maybe we should all start checking it and posting our links as we find them. Just a thought.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 17:55:53
Karen Clark wrote:
//snip//
"An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
know that he knew."
(Doug here)
What is the possibility that Vergil was, with or without realizing it,
conflating TWO separate stories he'd heard? One about Edward and a woman
"in" Warwick's household AND a very garbled version of Edward and Eleanor
Butler? I don't suppose any notes Vergil may have written are available (I
know, wishful thinking...)?
//snip//
"You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward."
(Doug, again)
Wouldn't most of those adults who had been living in 1483-85, have already
died by the time Vergil was writing his "history"? Or else been children?
Thus leaving Vergil with secondary sources, at best?
We know Titulus Regius had been suppressed and that Robert Morton has been
accused of thinning official records of things not supportive of the Tudor
position. We also know Vergil was writing a "history" that supported the
Tudors and their claims, which means, I would think, that IF Vergil DID find
anything that DIDN'T support the Tudors, we certainly wouldn't hear about it
from him! He wouldn't even have to do what Morton is alleged to have done,
he could simply ignore it and who would ever know?
//snip//
"Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
kind of sense."
(Doug here)
First, I hope I haven't "snipped" out too much and made a mash-up of your
ideas. That's certainly not my intention.
Lastly, the problem with this story, it seems to me, is that we really have
no idea what Vergil was basing it on. Was is notes from interviews? Written
records available to him, but no longer extant? Hearsay? To me it comes
across as the last, but then so does a lot of what passes for history when
there's no documentation to directly support it.
What do you think of the idea that the woman in the story is merely a
garbled recollection of Warwick and Edward's "disagreement" over Edward and
Elizabeth Woodville? Certainly Warwick was more than "upset" over that!
While EW wasn't a lady in Warwick's household, that point might simply have
been presumed and then given as the reason for Warwick's displeasure?
Certainly makes for some fun conjecturing and helps keep the brain active!
Doug
//snip//
"An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking
to sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which
implies that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not
supported by anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet
about the things that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd
know that he knew."
(Doug here)
What is the possibility that Vergil was, with or without realizing it,
conflating TWO separate stories he'd heard? One about Edward and a woman
"in" Warwick's household AND a very garbled version of Edward and Eleanor
Butler? I don't suppose any notes Vergil may have written are available (I
know, wishful thinking...)?
//snip//
"You suggest that whoever Vergil got the story from was so hazy about the
Edward/Eleanor marriage that they got the details totally mixed up. This is
plausible. However, the deposition of Edward V, Stillington's bombshell and
the accession of Richard III were quite startling, possibly traumatic,
events. Anyone who was around at the time would remember what happened. I
can't see such momentous events becoming so blurred in someone's mind that
they mistook a secret marriage for some vague tale of misdeeds by Edward."
(Doug, again)
Wouldn't most of those adults who had been living in 1483-85, have already
died by the time Vergil was writing his "history"? Or else been children?
Thus leaving Vergil with secondary sources, at best?
We know Titulus Regius had been suppressed and that Robert Morton has been
accused of thinning official records of things not supportive of the Tudor
position. We also know Vergil was writing a "history" that supported the
Tudors and their claims, which means, I would think, that IF Vergil DID find
anything that DIDN'T support the Tudors, we certainly wouldn't hear about it
from him! He wouldn't even have to do what Morton is alleged to have done,
he could simply ignore it and who would ever know?
//snip//
"Whether you agree with anything I've said or not, I do hope it makes some
kind of sense."
(Doug here)
First, I hope I haven't "snipped" out too much and made a mash-up of your
ideas. That's certainly not my intention.
Lastly, the problem with this story, it seems to me, is that we really have
no idea what Vergil was basing it on. Was is notes from interviews? Written
records available to him, but no longer extant? Hearsay? To me it comes
across as the last, but then so does a lot of what passes for history when
there's no documentation to directly support it.
What do you think of the idea that the woman in the story is merely a
garbled recollection of Warwick and Edward's "disagreement" over Edward and
Elizabeth Woodville? Certainly Warwick was more than "upset" over that!
While EW wasn't a lady in Warwick's household, that point might simply have
been presumed and then given as the reason for Warwick's displeasure?
Certainly makes for some fun conjecturing and helps keep the brain active!
Doug
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 21:21:12
Karen Clark wrote:
> Here's the Latin:
>
> Nec abhorret a veritate Edouardum tentasse, ut aiunt, nescio quid in domo comitis quod ab honestate omnino abesse, cum homo esset qui facile puellis oculos adiiceret easque deperiret. Caeterum quicquid fuerit, sive iniuria sive aemulatio imperii, quamobrem amicitia violata sint, posteaquam comes per literas amicorum cognovit ipsum regem occulte habere uxorem, et irritum infectum evasisse quicquid ipse in ea legatione de nova affinitate iugenda apud Ludovicum regem egisset, tanta repente animi indignatio eum cepit ut iam tum ipsum Edouardum ut hominem imperio minime dignum omnibus modis regno pellendum iudicarit.
>
> My Latin really isn't up to it, even with the (dubious) help of a machine translator.
>
> And here's the source:
>
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/24lat.html
Carol responds:
Great. Thank you. Now all we need is someone whose Latin is better than mine or yours to help us with the translation! I did catch what looks like "an eye for easy girls" and two references to Edward. Otherwise, I can read only an occasional word like "nova" or "omnibus." What a shame that I didn't keep up with my Latin!
Carol
> Here's the Latin:
>
> Nec abhorret a veritate Edouardum tentasse, ut aiunt, nescio quid in domo comitis quod ab honestate omnino abesse, cum homo esset qui facile puellis oculos adiiceret easque deperiret. Caeterum quicquid fuerit, sive iniuria sive aemulatio imperii, quamobrem amicitia violata sint, posteaquam comes per literas amicorum cognovit ipsum regem occulte habere uxorem, et irritum infectum evasisse quicquid ipse in ea legatione de nova affinitate iugenda apud Ludovicum regem egisset, tanta repente animi indignatio eum cepit ut iam tum ipsum Edouardum ut hominem imperio minime dignum omnibus modis regno pellendum iudicarit.
>
> My Latin really isn't up to it, even with the (dubious) help of a machine translator.
>
> And here's the source:
>
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/24lat.html
Carol responds:
Great. Thank you. Now all we need is someone whose Latin is better than mine or yours to help us with the translation! I did catch what looks like "an eye for easy girls" and two references to Edward. Otherwise, I can read only an occasional word like "nova" or "omnibus." What a shame that I didn't keep up with my Latin!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 21:41:32
Hilary wrote:
[snip]
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Carol responds:
Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
Hilary:
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
Carol responds:
I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
Carol
[snip]
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Carol responds:
Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
Hilary:
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
Carol responds:
I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 22:21:19
Hilary wrote:
>
> Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being 'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
>
[snip]
Carol responds:
Or annulled since it wasn't a legal marriage. There was no divorce in England, IIRC, until Henry VIII came along and made himself head of the Church.
Carol
>
> Yes Stephen, I could not see the Woodville marriage every being 'regularised' - it would have to be divorce (and a very black eye).
>
[snip]
Carol responds:
Or annulled since it wasn't a legal marriage. There was no divorce in England, IIRC, until Henry VIII came along and made himself head of the Church.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 22:36:17
Hilary wrote:
> Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks very much, Hilary. Yes, I've heard of this theory, but when I checked out the website, I found both it and his writing style hard to follow. If there's a book, though, I'd like to try to read it.
I recently started to read a novel based on this theory. It starts off with the narrator (Holbein?) visiting Sir Thomas More and then changes to the eighteen-year-old Richard ashamed of his own fear at Barnet and then discovering, if I recall correctly, that he enjoyed fighting. I don't remember any more of it. I think it was just a free Kindle sample that I didn't like well enough to buy the book.
The theory that More's book is not a pun but a parody of historians like Polydore Vergil is discussed at some length by Alison Hanham. Jeremy Potter and Annette Carson also mention it. I personally like the theory--it supposes that More's book was never supposed to be published, much less taken seriously, only circulated among his highly sophisticated friends, who might or might not appreciate the humor. (Did Polydore Vergil have a self-deprecating sense of humor? I rather doubt it.) Parts of it may have been based on a Latin manuscript by Morton, but I suspect that he was one of the "historians" at whom More was poking fun. Unfortunately, not enough people take this theory seriously and most historians see the book as a moral tract attacking tyranny in the (exaggerated) person of Richard III. (Obviously, More couldn't feature the tyrant he knew at first hand, Henry VII, and Henry VIII was only beginning to follow in his footsteps. By the time More discovered the true extent of Henry VIII's tyranny, it was too late to write anything.
Carol
> Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks very much, Hilary. Yes, I've heard of this theory, but when I checked out the website, I found both it and his writing style hard to follow. If there's a book, though, I'd like to try to read it.
I recently started to read a novel based on this theory. It starts off with the narrator (Holbein?) visiting Sir Thomas More and then changes to the eighteen-year-old Richard ashamed of his own fear at Barnet and then discovering, if I recall correctly, that he enjoyed fighting. I don't remember any more of it. I think it was just a free Kindle sample that I didn't like well enough to buy the book.
The theory that More's book is not a pun but a parody of historians like Polydore Vergil is discussed at some length by Alison Hanham. Jeremy Potter and Annette Carson also mention it. I personally like the theory--it supposes that More's book was never supposed to be published, much less taken seriously, only circulated among his highly sophisticated friends, who might or might not appreciate the humor. (Did Polydore Vergil have a self-deprecating sense of humor? I rather doubt it.) Parts of it may have been based on a Latin manuscript by Morton, but I suspect that he was one of the "historians" at whom More was poking fun. Unfortunately, not enough people take this theory seriously and most historians see the book as a moral tract attacking tyranny in the (exaggerated) person of Richard III. (Obviously, More couldn't feature the tyrant he knew at first hand, Henry VII, and Henry VIII was only beginning to follow in his footsteps. By the time More discovered the true extent of Henry VIII's tyranny, it was too late to write anything.
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-29 22:44:51
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 22:59:47
Carol said:
"I thought that you needed a subscription to access the rolls of Parliament
and privy council proceedings. I'd appreciate a link to a source that
doesn't require one. It just occurred to me that I should check out the
Links section on this site. Maybe we should all start checking it and
posting our links as we find them. Just a thought."
You're right, for full access to british history online, there's an annual
fee. Well worth it, in my view.
Karen
"I thought that you needed a subscription to access the rolls of Parliament
and privy council proceedings. I'd appreciate a link to a source that
doesn't require one. It just occurred to me that I should check out the
Links section on this site. Maybe we should all start checking it and
posting our links as we find them. Just a thought."
You're right, for full access to british history online, there's an annual
fee. Well worth it, in my view.
Karen
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-29 23:15:30
Yes, he was ancestor of all Kings from EIV onward, with the one obvious exception.
He had 3 sons and 8 daughters, so its possible a male Mortimer line is extant. There was however an unrelated Mortimer family in Norfolk, and allegedly some illegitimate male Mortimers around in the Wars of the Roses period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013, 22:44
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
He had 3 sons and 8 daughters, so its possible a male Mortimer line is extant. There was however an unrelated Mortimer family in Norfolk, and allegedly some illegitimate male Mortimers around in the Wars of the Roses period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013, 22:44
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-29 23:24:02
Karen Clark wrote:
[snip]
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles, shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good lordship of the suitor. [snip]
Carol responds:
Interesting about EW rejecting a marriage offer that Warwick had negotiated. The Bona of Savoy incident must have felt like deja vous.
Wasn't there also the incident in which Edward, Warwick, and (I think) Hastings "rated" (berated) the Woodvilles (the then Earl Rivers and his son Anthony) for being upstarts? That would obviously have predated Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth.
And, setting aside Edward's later treatment of John Neville (giving him the earldom of Northumberland and then taking it away) and, as I recall, taking away some preferment from Archbishop George, Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters. That might have been one reason why he was so keen to have Isabel marry George of Clarence and so determined to obtain a papal dispensation for them, Edward or no Edward. (He may have hoped for a similar marriage between Richard and Anne but didn't count on Richard's loyalty to Edward.)
I suspect you're right, as you said in another post, that Warwick would have shown no mercy to Edward had he won Barnet, but I'd like to think that you're wrong about his executing Richard in the same circumstance given Richard's youth and the fact that he'd grown up in Warwick's household. Yes, Warwick could be ruthless (as the executions of Rivers and John Woodville indicate), but he also felt strong family ties. And Aunt Cecily wouldn't look kindly on her nephew executing her sons.
Carol
[snip]
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles, shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good lordship of the suitor. [snip]
Carol responds:
Interesting about EW rejecting a marriage offer that Warwick had negotiated. The Bona of Savoy incident must have felt like deja vous.
Wasn't there also the incident in which Edward, Warwick, and (I think) Hastings "rated" (berated) the Woodvilles (the then Earl Rivers and his son Anthony) for being upstarts? That would obviously have predated Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth.
And, setting aside Edward's later treatment of John Neville (giving him the earldom of Northumberland and then taking it away) and, as I recall, taking away some preferment from Archbishop George, Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters. That might have been one reason why he was so keen to have Isabel marry George of Clarence and so determined to obtain a papal dispensation for them, Edward or no Edward. (He may have hoped for a similar marriage between Richard and Anne but didn't count on Richard's loyalty to Edward.)
I suspect you're right, as you said in another post, that Warwick would have shown no mercy to Edward had he won Barnet, but I'd like to think that you're wrong about his executing Richard in the same circumstance given Richard's youth and the fact that he'd grown up in Warwick's household. Yes, Warwick could be ruthless (as the executions of Rivers and John Woodville indicate), but he also felt strong family ties. And Aunt Cecily wouldn't look kindly on her nephew executing her sons.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 00:04:09
Carol.
You said:
"Wasn't there also the incident in which Edward, Warwick, and (I think)
Hastings "rated" (berated) the Woodvilles (the then Earl Rivers and his son
Anthony) for being upstarts? That would obviously have predated Edward's
"marriage" to Elizabeth."
Yes, this happened in Calais in 1460. Rivers and Anthony Wydeville were
captured in their beds (in Sandwich) and brought across the channel to
Calais where they were 'rated' by Salisbury, Warwick and Edward. Of the
three, Edward had far the better capacity for favourably changing his mind
about people.
You said:
"taking away some preferment from Archbishop George,"
Edward personally went to the Archbishop's house and removed the Great Seals
while Warwick was out of the country. He further made sure that the letter
confirming Bourchier as new cardinal (rather than George) made it's way
'accidentally' to the Archbishop's house. No-one's yet quite been able to
explain why George Nevill was sacked as Chancellor. And I think he'd have
made a perfectly splendid cardinal!
You said:
"Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various
heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available. Warwick's resentment
seems to be more related to possible marriage partners (eg, the duke of
Buckingham) being snatched away by the 'upstarts'. You mentioned a possible
marriage between Anne and Richard and yes, I think Warwick was rather keen
on this idea. He had no sons and needed powerful sons-in-law, not only for
his daughters' benefit but his own. I think it's this, Warwick's hopes for
Anne and Richard, that might have led to the idea they were 'childhood
sweethearts'.
You said:
"but I'd like to think that you're wrong about his executing Richard in the
same circumstance given Richard's youth and the fact that he'd grown up in
Warwick's household"
I'd like to think I'm wrong, as well.
Karen
You said:
"Wasn't there also the incident in which Edward, Warwick, and (I think)
Hastings "rated" (berated) the Woodvilles (the then Earl Rivers and his son
Anthony) for being upstarts? That would obviously have predated Edward's
"marriage" to Elizabeth."
Yes, this happened in Calais in 1460. Rivers and Anthony Wydeville were
captured in their beds (in Sandwich) and brought across the channel to
Calais where they were 'rated' by Salisbury, Warwick and Edward. Of the
three, Edward had far the better capacity for favourably changing his mind
about people.
You said:
"taking away some preferment from Archbishop George,"
Edward personally went to the Archbishop's house and removed the Great Seals
while Warwick was out of the country. He further made sure that the letter
confirming Bourchier as new cardinal (rather than George) made it's way
'accidentally' to the Archbishop's house. No-one's yet quite been able to
explain why George Nevill was sacked as Chancellor. And I think he'd have
made a perfectly splendid cardinal!
You said:
"Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various
heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available. Warwick's resentment
seems to be more related to possible marriage partners (eg, the duke of
Buckingham) being snatched away by the 'upstarts'. You mentioned a possible
marriage between Anne and Richard and yes, I think Warwick was rather keen
on this idea. He had no sons and needed powerful sons-in-law, not only for
his daughters' benefit but his own. I think it's this, Warwick's hopes for
Anne and Richard, that might have led to the idea they were 'childhood
sweethearts'.
You said:
"but I'd like to think that you're wrong about his executing Richard in the
same circumstance given Richard's youth and the fact that he'd grown up in
Warwick's household"
I'd like to think I'm wrong, as well.
Karen
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-30 09:10:58
Roger Mortimer the regicide is indeed a progenitor of the House of York. I believe that "Richard's Ancient Ancestors" is in Files, showing his descent from Llewellyn Fawr through the Mortimers (and Alfred, Malcolm Canmore and Brian Boru). There may be a very junior male line alive after 1425 but Ian Mortimer is almost certainly not related to his notorious namesake.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
Carol responds:
Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-30 12:25:42
Mortimer may well have issued the order but he most probably didn't do the deed. Not the sort of thing the Queen's consort would have dirtied his hands with, and a task he would have wanted to be able to prove non culpable for.
Paul
On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:44, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Judy,
>>
>> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
>
> I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:44, justcarol67 wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Judy,
>>
>> There's a similar, very scholarly work by Ian Mortimer about the survival of EII - that he went to live in Italy and agreed to keep out of EII's way, but in fact they met once. That was based upon the fact (among a lot of others) that although the body was displayed publicly it was custom to cover the face with a cloth as part of the embalming process. I actually do tend to believe Mortimer - the poker death always did seem a bit farfetched. Hilary
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Should "EII's" be EII's"? I wonder if Ian Mortimer is descended from the Roger Mortimer who allegedly killed Edward II with the redhot poker. Maybe he wants to defend his ancestor's reputation!
>
> I always get the Mortimers confused. I know that the particular Mortimer line from which Richard III (and Edward IV et al.) were descended was extinct in the male line, but I don't know how Isabella's Mortimer is related to them. Are the Yorkist kings descended from an alleged regicide? (I'm not counting Edward III in this as he was so young, only his mother's lover, and, of course, he was unquestionably the ancestor of Yorks, Lancasters, and Tudors alike.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 12:46:38
Hi Carol,
I don't buy into the Leslau theory because there are too many flaws in his dates - 'John Clement' would have been far too old to fulfill all his allegations. Some of the stuff is good, like he has some great points around the Eleanor Minories thing but then he spoils it by mentioning Botwright. If you look at Corpus Christi records Botwright was inducted in 1444, so couldn't have been Eleanor's son. Probably that's it; his theories at base level are quite good but then he spoils them by making them too sensational which in turn discredits them.
I don't think there is a book and it's frustrating the web is down. The allegorical nature of Holbein and other 16th century portraits I don't dispute though - in the mists of time I had to study that. And his interpretation of the Edward/Richard portraits is quite good.
I probably got the More/Morton thing from Hanham (it was much longer ago than Annette). I think there is a point there, particularly how More keeps inserting 'some men say that' Cheers Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> > Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Hilary. Yes, I've heard of this theory, but when I checked out the website, I found both it and his writing style hard to follow. If there's a book, though, I'd like to try to read it.
>
> I recently started to read a novel based on this theory. It starts off with the narrator (Holbein?) visiting Sir Thomas More and then changes to the eighteen-year-old Richard ashamed of his own fear at Barnet and then discovering, if I recall correctly, that he enjoyed fighting. I don't remember any more of it. I think it was just a free Kindle sample that I didn't like well enough to buy the book.
>
> The theory that More's book is not a pun but a parody of historians like Polydore Vergil is discussed at some length by Alison Hanham. Jeremy Potter and Annette Carson also mention it. I personally like the theory--it supposes that More's book was never supposed to be published, much less taken seriously, only circulated among his highly sophisticated friends, who might or might not appreciate the humor. (Did Polydore Vergil have a self-deprecating sense of humor? I rather doubt it.) Parts of it may have been based on a Latin manuscript by Morton, but I suspect that he was one of the "historians" at whom More was poking fun. Unfortunately, not enough people take this theory seriously and most historians see the book as a moral tract attacking tyranny in the (exaggerated) person of Richard III. (Obviously, More couldn't feature the tyrant he knew at first hand, Henry VII, and Henry VIII was only beginning to follow in his footsteps. By the time More discovered the true extent of Henry VIII's tyranny, it was too late to write anything.
>
> Carol
>
I don't buy into the Leslau theory because there are too many flaws in his dates - 'John Clement' would have been far too old to fulfill all his allegations. Some of the stuff is good, like he has some great points around the Eleanor Minories thing but then he spoils it by mentioning Botwright. If you look at Corpus Christi records Botwright was inducted in 1444, so couldn't have been Eleanor's son. Probably that's it; his theories at base level are quite good but then he spoils them by making them too sensational which in turn discredits them.
I don't think there is a book and it's frustrating the web is down. The allegorical nature of Holbein and other 16th century portraits I don't dispute though - in the mists of time I had to study that. And his interpretation of the Edward/Richard portraits is quite good.
I probably got the More/Morton thing from Hanham (it was much longer ago than Annette). I think there is a point there, particularly how More keeps inserting 'some men say that' Cheers Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> > Jack Leslau was an 'expert' in the interpretation of Holbein and Holbein-style paintings. One of his most famous theories you may know it - is based on the belief that a painting of Sir Thomas More and his family contains someone who could be Richard of York (the younger prince)who married into More's family as Dr John Clement. The painting is allegorical because 'John Clement' wears clothes which pre-date the painting. He also reckoned the elder prince was shetered as Lord Edward Guildford and appeared at H8's court. Therefore More wrote his history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Hilary. Yes, I've heard of this theory, but when I checked out the website, I found both it and his writing style hard to follow. If there's a book, though, I'd like to try to read it.
>
> I recently started to read a novel based on this theory. It starts off with the narrator (Holbein?) visiting Sir Thomas More and then changes to the eighteen-year-old Richard ashamed of his own fear at Barnet and then discovering, if I recall correctly, that he enjoyed fighting. I don't remember any more of it. I think it was just a free Kindle sample that I didn't like well enough to buy the book.
>
> The theory that More's book is not a pun but a parody of historians like Polydore Vergil is discussed at some length by Alison Hanham. Jeremy Potter and Annette Carson also mention it. I personally like the theory--it supposes that More's book was never supposed to be published, much less taken seriously, only circulated among his highly sophisticated friends, who might or might not appreciate the humor. (Did Polydore Vergil have a self-deprecating sense of humor? I rather doubt it.) Parts of it may have been based on a Latin manuscript by Morton, but I suspect that he was one of the "historians" at whom More was poking fun. Unfortunately, not enough people take this theory seriously and most historians see the book as a moral tract attacking tyranny in the (exaggerated) person of Richard III. (Obviously, More couldn't feature the tyrant he knew at first hand, Henry VII, and Henry VIII was only beginning to follow in his footsteps. By the time More discovered the true extent of Henry VIII's tyranny, it was too late to write anything.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 12:55:25
Hi Carol,
You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
>
> Hilary:
> > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
>
> So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
>
> And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
>
> Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
>
> Carol
>
You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
>
> Hilary:
> > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
>
> So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
>
> And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
>
> Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
>
> Carol
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 13:24:27
Hi,
I just did a reply to your other posts and lost them - I'll try again in one go.
You know a great deal more about the Nevills than me - I'd be the first to admit I've not visited primary sources on them. This discussion has driven me back to Geoffrey Richardson's great simplistic little book on them. I shall visit your links.
I think everything about this era is complicated by the inter-marriages, sibling rivalry, you name it - I don't envy David in his task. And of course, self interest. If it was a choice between family affection and land acquisition then it's pretty certain what would win - land the great commodity (look at George and Richard). Then with the Nevills there's the added complication that Ralph's second wife was a Beaufort (so Cis was related to MB) and arguably left his best lands to her children.
As you and Carol say, that Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles goes back a long way to his 'ticking off' of them in Calais - but then Edward gave them the biggest roasting there and forgave them. That he was upset by the EW marriage seems true, as was Cis who was a negotiator with him. It does seem to have been a festering sore. After that both he (and Cis) lost influence over E and by 1468 he seems out to teach E a lesson. If he denounced E over the pre-contract (assuming it existed and he knew) then it wouldn't cost E the throne - as you say nasty rumours arose about the parentage of Edward of Lancaster but it didn't topple H6. E might just have had to bite the bullit like his grandson and get rid of EW. He was young; there were years to put things right with another legitmate wife.
I don't know that much of John (as you say the gentle in novels) or Thomas and Archbishop George is always portrayed as a bit of a sneaky ambitious weasel (Morton comes to mind)but actually died quite young. I find Warwick the seafairer pirate quite a dashing character; combine that with the fact he was a wheeler/dealer renaissance man and he's more than interesting.
All this family self-interest, not just that of the Nevills, makes me dismiss the 'big conspiracy' theory around Richard. He seems to have got in the way of a lot of people's self-interest at just the wrong time (ie when he lost his heir for a start).
At the moment I'm looking at the Tyrells and Hautes; there could be a bit of interesting stuff around the edges there (mention of Catesby for a start). Not ready to say anything yet though. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
> half-sisters.
>
> If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
> marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
> depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
>
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
> shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
> Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
> surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
> 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
> lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
> Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
> embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
> announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
> question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
> known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
> Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
> government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
> his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
> that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
> Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
> just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
> out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
> precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
> position.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
> Warwick any old time.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> Just a couple of things.
>
> Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
> end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
>
> I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
> give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
> born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
> against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
> would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
> Hilary
>
> PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I just did a reply to your other posts and lost them - I'll try again in one go.
You know a great deal more about the Nevills than me - I'd be the first to admit I've not visited primary sources on them. This discussion has driven me back to Geoffrey Richardson's great simplistic little book on them. I shall visit your links.
I think everything about this era is complicated by the inter-marriages, sibling rivalry, you name it - I don't envy David in his task. And of course, self interest. If it was a choice between family affection and land acquisition then it's pretty certain what would win - land the great commodity (look at George and Richard). Then with the Nevills there's the added complication that Ralph's second wife was a Beaufort (so Cis was related to MB) and arguably left his best lands to her children.
As you and Carol say, that Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles goes back a long way to his 'ticking off' of them in Calais - but then Edward gave them the biggest roasting there and forgave them. That he was upset by the EW marriage seems true, as was Cis who was a negotiator with him. It does seem to have been a festering sore. After that both he (and Cis) lost influence over E and by 1468 he seems out to teach E a lesson. If he denounced E over the pre-contract (assuming it existed and he knew) then it wouldn't cost E the throne - as you say nasty rumours arose about the parentage of Edward of Lancaster but it didn't topple H6. E might just have had to bite the bullit like his grandson and get rid of EW. He was young; there were years to put things right with another legitmate wife.
I don't know that much of John (as you say the gentle in novels) or Thomas and Archbishop George is always portrayed as a bit of a sneaky ambitious weasel (Morton comes to mind)but actually died quite young. I find Warwick the seafairer pirate quite a dashing character; combine that with the fact he was a wheeler/dealer renaissance man and he's more than interesting.
All this family self-interest, not just that of the Nevills, makes me dismiss the 'big conspiracy' theory around Richard. He seems to have got in the way of a lot of people's self-interest at just the wrong time (ie when he lost his heir for a start).
At the moment I'm looking at the Tyrells and Hautes; there could be a bit of interesting stuff around the edges there (mention of Catesby for a start). Not ready to say anything yet though. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
> half-sisters.
>
> If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
> marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
> depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
>
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
> shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
> Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
> surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
> 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
> lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
> Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
> embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
> announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
> question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
> known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
> Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
> government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
> his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
> that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
> Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
> just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
> out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
> precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
> position.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
> Warwick any old time.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> Just a couple of things.
>
> Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
> end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
>
> I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
> give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
> born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
> against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
> would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
> Hilary
>
> PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 13:35:17
He was her nephew (son of her half-brother the 2nd Earl)although there was a possible Butler connection as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Talbot_(soldier)
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
[snip]
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Carol responds:
Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
Hilary:
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
Carol responds:
I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
Carol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Talbot_(soldier)
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
[snip]
> I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
Carol responds:
Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
Hilary:
> Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
Carol responds:
I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 13:35:18
Sorry 1495 - she didn't live that long!!!
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Hilary wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
> >
> > Hilary:
> > > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
> >
> > So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
> >
> > And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
> >
> > Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Hilary wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
> >
> > Hilary:
> > > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
> >
> > So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
> >
> > And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
> >
> > Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 13:49:42
Like JAH I don't think you can dismiss the Butler/Catesby connection either. As well as the lawyer relationship, their lands are so close they must have been in one another's pockets. I know; I live in a house on land that was once owned by Catesby. Why would Catesby support something he blatantly knew was untrue and risk the wrath of the Sudeleys and Elizabeth Mowbrary - he was self-interested as well? R might not be there forever and indeed wasn't. Hilary
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> He was her nephew (son of her half-brother the 2nd Earl)although there was a possible Butler connection as well:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Talbot_(soldier)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
>
> Hilary:
> > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
>
> So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
>
> And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
>
> Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> He was her nephew (son of her half-brother the 2nd Earl)although there was a possible Butler connection as well:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Talbot_(soldier)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I also agree that Cis's influence on all this is under-rated but I do think Hicks is biased against most things Ricardian so I'm sceptical of a lot of his claims (his book on Anne Neville was pretty bad). I have more respect for Pollard and haven't read him on Warwick so I must investigate.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks is virulently anti-Richard and Pollard, IIRC, thinks that he probably murdered his nephews but did so primarily out of self-preservation. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; it's been awhile since I've read Pollard, but that's the impression I got from the Robinson documentary.) Essentially, Hicks is a traditionalist and Pollard a moderate anti-Ricardian. Kendall, of course, is pro-Richard, but I don't recall what, if anything, he has to say on the matter.
>
> Hilary:
> > Where I stumble and where I'm with JAH on the pre-contract is that Eleanor was not some obscure merchant's wife - she was a great lady, far greater than EW, so why cite her if not true? I see Richard as more flawed than some here probably see him, but I think he had a conscience and would not just have set aside his brother's children to save his skin without a reason. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It seems to me a key point that she is identified by name (and as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter) in Titulus Regius (and the 1483 proclamation by the Three Estates on which TR is based).
>
> So my questions are: 1) How public were these documents? (They were written in English, so any literate Englishman or -woman could have read them if they were publicly available.)
>
> And 2) How many living relatives did Eleanor Butler have who could have stepped forward and denied the truth of the precontract? I'm pretty sure that her sister Elizabeth the (dowager) Duchess of Norfolk was alive as was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who fought against Richard at Bosworth. (Not sure how closely they were related; I'm sure that Stephen can help us out here.)
>
> Neither of these people spoke up. Why not, if they knew about the proclamation/Titulus Regius and if the marriage had not taken place?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 18:27:40
Carol earlier:
>
> "Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
Karen responded:
> I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available.
Carol responds:
There was at least one, twenty-year-old John, who was scandalously married to Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, who was in her sixties and who was, I think, Warwick's older sister. He couldn't have been happy about a marriage that made a laughingstock of his family. I suspect that it was the reason Warwick executed John and his father rather than merely taking them prisoner.
As for her other brothers, Anthony married Baroness Scales (who became another Elizabeth Woodville!), but I don't know whether that was before or after Edward IV's "marriage" to Elizabeth. Another brother, Lionel, was a clergyman. I don't know about her other brothers, Thomas and Richard. Elizabeth also had two sons, both of whom were children when she became queen, but that didn't prevent the elder son from being married to Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter (Edward IV's niece). Little Richard Grey was still available for Anne or Isabel had Edward wished it, but possibly the mutual antipathy between EW and cousin Warwick prevented any such marriage.
Still, the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the Woodvilles to the most noble blood in England--not to mention lands and titles, probably tainting their bloodlines in Warwick's view. (You may have mentioned something of the sort in the part of your post that I snipped.)
Carol
>
> "Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
Karen responded:
> I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available.
Carol responds:
There was at least one, twenty-year-old John, who was scandalously married to Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, who was in her sixties and who was, I think, Warwick's older sister. He couldn't have been happy about a marriage that made a laughingstock of his family. I suspect that it was the reason Warwick executed John and his father rather than merely taking them prisoner.
As for her other brothers, Anthony married Baroness Scales (who became another Elizabeth Woodville!), but I don't know whether that was before or after Edward IV's "marriage" to Elizabeth. Another brother, Lionel, was a clergyman. I don't know about her other brothers, Thomas and Richard. Elizabeth also had two sons, both of whom were children when she became queen, but that didn't prevent the elder son from being married to Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter (Edward IV's niece). Little Richard Grey was still available for Anne or Isabel had Edward wished it, but possibly the mutual antipathy between EW and cousin Warwick prevented any such marriage.
Still, the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the Woodvilles to the most noble blood in England--not to mention lands and titles, probably tainting their bloodlines in Warwick's view. (You may have mentioned something of the sort in the part of your post that I snipped.)
Carol
Re: Precontract Outcome (was Documentary)
2013-01-30 18:34:05
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> Roger Mortimer the regicide is indeed a progenitor of the House of York. I believe that "Richard's Ancient Ancestors" is in Files, showing his descent from Llewellyn Fawr through the Mortimers (and Alfred, Malcolm Canmore and Brian Boru). There may be a very junior male line alive after 1425 but Ian Mortimer is almost certainly not related to his notorious namesake.
Carol responds:
Hi, Stephen. Thanks for the information. I found the file, but, unfortunately, I can't read it even at 400 percent enlargement (the largest size available).
carol
>
> Roger Mortimer the regicide is indeed a progenitor of the House of York. I believe that "Richard's Ancient Ancestors" is in Files, showing his descent from Llewellyn Fawr through the Mortimers (and Alfred, Malcolm Canmore and Brian Boru). There may be a very junior male line alive after 1425 but Ian Mortimer is almost certainly not related to his notorious namesake.
Carol responds:
Hi, Stephen. Thanks for the information. I found the file, but, unfortunately, I can't read it even at 400 percent enlargement (the largest size available).
carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 18:46:19
Hilary wrote:
> I don't buy into the Leslau theory because there are too many flaws in his dates - [snip]
> I probably got the More/Morton thing from Hanham (it was much longer ago than Annette). I think there is a point there, particularly how More keeps inserting 'some men say that' Cheers Hilary
s history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks again, Hilary. I think that the first person to mention a Latin manuscript by Morton as a source for More is Buck, who apparently saw the manuscript. How close it was to More's adaptation, which exists in at least four versions, as I recall (some English, some Latin, all unfinished), I don't know. But I suspect that the invented conversations are for the most part More's own work. There's a mischievous sense of humor (and irony) at work that I would be very surprised to find in the cunning and rather sinister Cardinal Morton. (Just my own view. Others, from Clements Markham onward, credit Morton with the whole "history."
I don't understand how "some men say" could be a pun, but it could well mean "Bishop Morton says" or "Polydore Vergil says." Or it could simply mean "some uninformed gossips say."
Carol
> I don't buy into the Leslau theory because there are too many flaws in his dates - [snip]
> I probably got the More/Morton thing from Hanham (it was much longer ago than Annette). I think there is a point there, particularly how More keeps inserting 'some men say that' Cheers Hilary
s history as a decoy (I've also read others say it was a private 'pun' on what Morton had told him). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks again, Hilary. I think that the first person to mention a Latin manuscript by Morton as a source for More is Buck, who apparently saw the manuscript. How close it was to More's adaptation, which exists in at least four versions, as I recall (some English, some Latin, all unfinished), I don't know. But I suspect that the invented conversations are for the most part More's own work. There's a mischievous sense of humor (and irony) at work that I would be very surprised to find in the cunning and rather sinister Cardinal Morton. (Just my own view. Others, from Clements Markham onward, credit Morton with the whole "history."
I don't understand how "some men say" could be a pun, but it could well mean "Bishop Morton says" or "Polydore Vergil says." Or it could simply mean "some uninformed gossips say."
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 19:05:37
Hilary wrote:
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why *Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray. She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why *Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 19:35:11
I cannot vouch for the other male members, but I for one never wanted to be a princess!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
> Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" lisa.holtjones@...@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> >
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net>>>
> > To:
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > To:
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> > not Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> > Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> > makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> > his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
> Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" lisa.holtjones@...@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...
> bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> >
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net>>>
> > To:
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...
> > To:
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> > not Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> > Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> > makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> > his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 19:35:11
Well that makes three of us!! Hilary
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: Documentary
I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
Liz
From: Paul Trevor Bale mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
To: RichardIIISociety forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
Subject: Documentary
I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: Documentary
I thought it was by an independent production company and only being shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to his head.
Liz
From: Paul Trevor Bale mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
To: RichardIIISociety forum mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
Subject: Documentary
I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it begins.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 19:35:11
Hi Harry does look like Charles, look at the recent pics of him speaking of his tour in Afganistan, very much like Charles.
Christine
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 0:01
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.commailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk/>>>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk/>>>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net
stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net/>>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.antiques-boutique.com/> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Christine
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013, 0:01
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.commailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com
mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk/>>>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk
theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk/>>>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
>
> Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> can anyone watch this now?:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net
stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net/>>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
>
>
> Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
> The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> not Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
%40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> his head.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> begins.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.antiques-boutique.com/> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 19:42:04
Good to know George!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I cannot vouch for the other male members, but I for one never wanted to be a princess!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
> Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" lisa.holtjones@...<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.comlisa.holtjones>@...<http://googlemail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> > not Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> > Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> > makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> > his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*<http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
I cannot vouch for the other male members, but I for one never wanted to be a princess!
George
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> He certainly lives up to previous Prince Harry's (Henry/Hal). And my gracious, all the intermarriages between descendants of Victoria and Albert, most of them look like clones, and Harry doesn't really look like his "father", and he still has all his hair.
> Way off the subject, I do apologize. But I was thinking about Henry VIII and whether or not his children were legitimate. For all of us who wished we were princesses as little girls, I am quite thankful that a) there are not many princesses in the USA and b) I cannot imagine life in a fishbowl!
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" lisa.holtjones@...<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.comlisa.holtjones>@...<http://googlemail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> LOL - we've always thought he's not Charles's - he looks like the Officer
> she had an affair with!! No way is he Charlies!
>
> On 24 January 2013 19:40, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
> > From the histories I have read, it seems that there was controversy up
> > until the time of Princes Diana, and who EXACTLY is Prince Harry's father?
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The program "proved" Richard did kill the princes.......What do you guys
> > think about the likelihood of Ed being We've alillegitimate?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> > This one still works
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH7Nyx19amQ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.ukhttp://40yahoo.co.uk>>>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > I thought Robinsons show on Bosworth was quite balanced, really:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Youtube version seems to have been destroyed by Sky TV,
> > can anyone watch this now?:
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeMY5M6-sw&playnext=1&list=PLD16FB3C2F8FCB909&feature=results_video
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
> stephenmlark%40talktalk.nethttp://40talktalk.net>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 17:23
> > Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> > Quite correct, Kate, I see no mention of "Time Team" or "Tony Robinson":
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fletcher_kate@...<mailto:fletcher_kate%40rocketmail.com>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> > The Channel 4 press release doesn't mention Time Team and says the
> > documentary will be presented by someone called Simon Farnaby, thankfully
> > not Tony Robinson.
> >
> >
> > http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some explain what Time Team is? Thanks. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> %40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>>, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's what I thought but two of the tv listings magazines, Radio
> > Times and TV & Satellite Weekly, both say Time Team.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 24 Jan 2013, at 11:15, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was by an independent production company and only being
> > shown (as opposed to being made)by Channel 4 or is this the company that
> > makes Time Team? I can't stand Robinso either, I think his fame has gone to
> > his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 10:55
> > > > > Subject: Documentary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just read that the documentary will be a Time Team film which
> > fills me with dread as every single Time Team to date has been presented by
> > the 'LOOK AT ME' actor Tony Robinson!
> > > > > I hope this will be the exception or it will be ruined before it
> > begins.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.comhttp://www.Antiques-Boutique.com> http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*<http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>http://www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*>
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-30 21:15:29
My sheet currently has 103 Nevilles, plus of course the various daughters who married into the nobility and are listed in the "spouses" column.
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3 listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 13:24
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi,
I just did a reply to your other posts and lost them - I'll try again in one go.
You know a great deal more about the Nevills than me - I'd be the first to admit I've not visited primary sources on them. This discussion has driven me back to Geoffrey Richardson's great simplistic little book on them. I shall visit your links.
I think everything about this era is complicated by the inter-marriages, sibling rivalry, you name it - I don't envy David in his task. And of course, self interest. If it was a choice between family affection and land acquisition then it's pretty certain what would win - land the great commodity (look at George and Richard). Then with the Nevills there's the added complication that Ralph's second wife was a Beaufort (so Cis was related to MB) and arguably left his best lands to her children.
As you and Carol say, that Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles goes back a long way to his 'ticking off' of them in Calais - but then Edward gave them the biggest roasting there and forgave them. That he was upset by the EW marriage seems true, as was Cis who was a negotiator with him. It does seem to have been a festering sore. After that both he (and Cis) lost influence over E and by 1468 he seems out to teach E a lesson. If he denounced E over the pre-contract (assuming it existed and he knew) then it wouldn't cost E the throne - as you say nasty rumours arose about the parentage of Edward of Lancaster but it didn't topple H6. E might just have had to bite the bullit like his grandson and get rid of EW. He was young; there were years to put things right with another legitmate wife.
I don't know that much of John (as you say the gentle in novels) or Thomas and Archbishop George is always portrayed as a bit of a sneaky ambitious weasel (Morton comes to mind)but actually died quite young. I find Warwick the seafairer pirate quite a dashing character; combine that with the fact he was a wheeler/dealer renaissance man and he's more than interesting.
All this family self-interest, not just that of the Nevills, makes me dismiss the 'big conspiracy' theory around Richard. He seems to have got in the way of a lot of people's self-interest at just the wrong time (ie when he lost his heir for a start).
At the moment I'm looking at the Tyrells and Hautes; there could be a bit of interesting stuff around the edges there (mention of Catesby for a start). Not ready to say anything yet though. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
> half-sisters.
>
> If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
> marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
> depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
>
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
> shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
> Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
> surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
> 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
> lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
> Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
> embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
> announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
> question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
> known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
> Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
> government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
> his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
> that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
> Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
> just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
> out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
> precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
> position.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
> Warwick any old time.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> Just a couple of things.
>
> Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
> end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
>
> I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
> give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
> born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
> against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
> would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
> Hilary
>
> PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3 listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013, 13:24
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hi,
I just did a reply to your other posts and lost them - I'll try again in one go.
You know a great deal more about the Nevills than me - I'd be the first to admit I've not visited primary sources on them. This discussion has driven me back to Geoffrey Richardson's great simplistic little book on them. I shall visit your links.
I think everything about this era is complicated by the inter-marriages, sibling rivalry, you name it - I don't envy David in his task. And of course, self interest. If it was a choice between family affection and land acquisition then it's pretty certain what would win - land the great commodity (look at George and Richard). Then with the Nevills there's the added complication that Ralph's second wife was a Beaufort (so Cis was related to MB) and arguably left his best lands to her children.
As you and Carol say, that Warwick didn't like the Woodvilles goes back a long way to his 'ticking off' of them in Calais - but then Edward gave them the biggest roasting there and forgave them. That he was upset by the EW marriage seems true, as was Cis who was a negotiator with him. It does seem to have been a festering sore. After that both he (and Cis) lost influence over E and by 1468 he seems out to teach E a lesson. If he denounced E over the pre-contract (assuming it existed and he knew) then it wouldn't cost E the throne - as you say nasty rumours arose about the parentage of Edward of Lancaster but it didn't topple H6. E might just have had to bite the bullit like his grandson and get rid of EW. He was young; there were years to put things right with another legitmate wife.
I don't know that much of John (as you say the gentle in novels) or Thomas and Archbishop George is always portrayed as a bit of a sneaky ambitious weasel (Morton comes to mind)but actually died quite young. I find Warwick the seafairer pirate quite a dashing character; combine that with the fact he was a wheeler/dealer renaissance man and he's more than interesting.
All this family self-interest, not just that of the Nevills, makes me dismiss the 'big conspiracy' theory around Richard. He seems to have got in the way of a lot of people's self-interest at just the wrong time (ie when he lost his heir for a start).
At the moment I'm looking at the Tyrells and Hautes; there could be a bit of interesting stuff around the edges there (mention of Catesby for a start). Not ready to say anything yet though. Cheers Hilary
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Hilary
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the bitterness between Anne Beauchamp and her
> half-sisters.
>
> If Stephen's correct, there was nothing Edward could put right about his
> marriage to Elizabeth. Not having studied the legalities of this in any
> depth, or at all, I just don't know, one way or the other.
>
> Warwick's bitterness towards Edward and, particularly, the Wydevilles,
> shouldn't be underestimated. He had no good reason, beyond spite, to execute
> Rivers and John Wydeville. This was a marriage that had caught him by
> surprise. His animosity towards Elizabeth Wydeville, in particular, predated
> 1464, when she rejected an offer of marriage made to her via his good
> lordship of the suitor. If he had any knowledge of a prior marriage for
> Edward, I think he'd have promulgated it with glee, even if only to
> embarrass and, possibly, vanquish the queen. Immediately after the
> announcement at Reading would have been the time to call the marriage into
> question (as I believe it was, though I'm hazy on the details) had Warwick
> known about Eleanor Butler at the time. Another time to do it would be from
> Calais, when he and Clarence were issuing their manifestoes about bad
> government and evil counsel (also familiar). He had the Wydevilles firmly in
> his sights then and that would be the perfect moment to include the news
> that the king's marriage wasn't legal. If not then, the Readeption, with
> Edward in exile and Elizabeth in sanctuary, would be a good time to bring up
> just how irresponsible England's ex-king was. Warwick made political capital
> out of whatever he had at hand, and he made no capital out of the
> precontract. And yes, this is highly speculative, but from a pretty firm
> position.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about waking any 'tigers'. I'm happy to talk about
> Warwick any old time.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: hjnatdat
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:36:25 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> Just a couple of things.
>
> Anne Beauchamp and her sister Margaret weren't particularly close until the
> end - they'd fallen out about Anne's inheritance (sound familiar?)
>
> I'll ask again why Warwick would want to discredit Edward's marriage and
> give him a chance to put it right - particularly after 1468 and E5 wasn't
> born until Nov 1470? He was about to take EW's father's head off so revenge
> against the Woodvilles could come in different forms. Surely, the knowledge
> would only be useful when Edward was dead and who knew when that would be?
> Hilary
>
> PS Sorry I awoke this 'tiger' - feared I would when I raised my questions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 02:04:29
Carol
Katherine Dowager Duchess of Norfolk was Warwick's aunt. Neither party was
forced into the marriage, consent was required by both of them. Yes, it was
a highly irregular marriage but I doubt it was this alone that prompted
Warwick's decision to murder Rivers and his son (because, as much as I
admire the man, murder it most definitely was).
You said:
"the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the Woodvilles to
the most noble blood in England"
And, in turn, it linked those families more closely to the King, so there
was mutual benefit.
Anthony Wydeville married twice. The name of his second wife slips my mind
at the moment. Susan Higginbotham's blog has a lot of useful information
about the family.
Warwick had problems not only with the elevation of the Wydevilles, but also
the Herberts. (And he got rid of them, as well.) While he might have been
happy with marriages between his children and Edward's, I don't think he'd
have countenanced, for one moment, marriages to the Queen's sons. He was
happy enough for John's son, George, to be betrothed to Elizabeth of York
and (sheer speculation, of course) I suspect that, if he'd had a son, the
minute she was born he'd have suggested young Richard (what other name could
Warwick's son have had?) as the perfect husband for her. Trying to follow
Warwick's psychology makes me dizzy.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:27:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
>
> "Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various
heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
Karen responded:
> I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available.
Carol responds:
There was at least one, twenty-year-old John, who was scandalously married
to Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, who was in her sixties and who was, I
think, Warwick's older sister. He couldn't have been happy about a marriage
that made a laughingstock of his family. I suspect that it was the reason
Warwick executed John and his father rather than merely taking them
prisoner.
As for her other brothers, Anthony married Baroness Scales (who became
another Elizabeth Woodville!), but I don't know whether that was before or
after Edward IV's "marriage" to Elizabeth. Another brother, Lionel, was a
clergyman. I don't know about her other brothers, Thomas and Richard.
Elizabeth also had two sons, both of whom were children when she became
queen, but that didn't prevent the elder son from being married to Anne of
York, Duchess of Exeter (Edward IV's niece). Little Richard Grey was still
available for Anne or Isabel had Edward wished it, but possibly the mutual
antipathy between EW and cousin Warwick prevented any such marriage.
Still, the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the
Woodvilles to the most noble blood in England--not to mention lands and
titles, probably tainting their bloodlines in Warwick's view. (You may have
mentioned something of the sort in the part of your post that I snipped.)
Carol
Katherine Dowager Duchess of Norfolk was Warwick's aunt. Neither party was
forced into the marriage, consent was required by both of them. Yes, it was
a highly irregular marriage but I doubt it was this alone that prompted
Warwick's decision to murder Rivers and his son (because, as much as I
admire the man, murder it most definitely was).
You said:
"the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the Woodvilles to
the most noble blood in England"
And, in turn, it linked those families more closely to the King, so there
was mutual benefit.
Anthony Wydeville married twice. The name of his second wife slips my mind
at the moment. Susan Higginbotham's blog has a lot of useful information
about the family.
Warwick had problems not only with the elevation of the Wydevilles, but also
the Herberts. (And he got rid of them, as well.) While he might have been
happy with marriages between his children and Edward's, I don't think he'd
have countenanced, for one moment, marriages to the Queen's sons. He was
happy enough for John's son, George, to be betrothed to Elizabeth of York
and (sheer speculation, of course) I suspect that, if he'd had a son, the
minute she was born he'd have suggested young Richard (what other name could
Warwick's son have had?) as the perfect husband for her. Trying to follow
Warwick's psychology makes me dizzy.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:27:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Carol earlier:
>
> "Warwick undoubtedly resented the marrying off of the Woodvilles to various
heirs and heiresses. I wonder if he feared a similar fate for his daughters"
Karen responded:
> I'm not sure there were any male Wydevilles available.
Carol responds:
There was at least one, twenty-year-old John, who was scandalously married
to Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, who was in her sixties and who was, I
think, Warwick's older sister. He couldn't have been happy about a marriage
that made a laughingstock of his family. I suspect that it was the reason
Warwick executed John and his father rather than merely taking them
prisoner.
As for her other brothers, Anthony married Baroness Scales (who became
another Elizabeth Woodville!), but I don't know whether that was before or
after Edward IV's "marriage" to Elizabeth. Another brother, Lionel, was a
clergyman. I don't know about her other brothers, Thomas and Richard.
Elizabeth also had two sons, both of whom were children when she became
queen, but that didn't prevent the elder son from being married to Anne of
York, Duchess of Exeter (Edward IV's niece). Little Richard Grey was still
available for Anne or Isabel had Edward wished it, but possibly the mutual
antipathy between EW and cousin Warwick prevented any such marriage.
Still, the marriages of EW's male and female relatives did link the
Woodvilles to the most noble blood in England--not to mention lands and
titles, probably tainting their bloodlines in Warwick's view. (You may have
mentioned something of the sort in the part of your post that I snipped.)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 02:11:19
If the marriage between Edward and Eleanor did take place, it's entirely
possible that no-one knew about it, even Eleanor's sister. Her silence might
just as easily signal her own surprise at the news as a tacit acceptance.
Strangely, this is one of those things (the Mowbray/Richard of York
marriage) that could be used to support either view. If Eleanor said nothing
to her sister about her daughter's new young husband, then maybe it was
because she hadn't married Edward secretly. Again, I'm not arguing against
the precontract, just trying to work it all out.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:05:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray.
She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would
have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to
lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone
to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their
support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered
during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up
after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're
right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her
daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why
*Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's
silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for
the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt
that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
possible that no-one knew about it, even Eleanor's sister. Her silence might
just as easily signal her own surprise at the news as a tacit acceptance.
Strangely, this is one of those things (the Mowbray/Richard of York
marriage) that could be used to support either view. If Eleanor said nothing
to her sister about her daughter's new young husband, then maybe it was
because she hadn't married Edward secretly. Again, I'm not arguing against
the precontract, just trying to work it all out.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:05:32 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray.
She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would
have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to
lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone
to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their
support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered
during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up
after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're
right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her
daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why
*Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's
silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for
the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt
that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 02:12:59
103 Nevills are barely enough!
This sounds like exhausting work.
Karen
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:15:26 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
My sheet currently has 103 Nevilles, plus of course the various daughters
who married into the nobility and are listed in the "spouses" column.
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3
listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
This sounds like exhausting work.
Karen
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:15:26 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
My sheet currently has 103 Nevilles, plus of course the various daughters
who married into the nobility and are listed in the "spouses" column.
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3
listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 14:46:45
I wouldn't argue with you there either Karen. Tantalisingly these things can often be taken to support both views. Hilary
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 2:11
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
If the marriage between Edward and Eleanor did take place, it's entirely
possible that no-one knew about it, even Eleanor's sister. Her silence might
just as easily signal her own surprise at the news as a tacit acceptance.
Strangely, this is one of those things (the Mowbray/Richard of York
marriage) that could be used to support either view. If Eleanor said nothing
to her sister about her daughter's new young husband, then maybe it was
because she hadn't married Edward secretly. Again, I'm not arguing against
the precontract, just trying to work it all out.
Karen
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:05:32 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray.
She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would
have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to
lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone
to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their
support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered
during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up
after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're
right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her
daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why
*Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's
silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for
the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt
that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 2:11
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
If the marriage between Edward and Eleanor did take place, it's entirely
possible that no-one knew about it, even Eleanor's sister. Her silence might
just as easily signal her own surprise at the news as a tacit acceptance.
Strangely, this is one of those things (the Mowbray/Richard of York
marriage) that could be used to support either view. If Eleanor said nothing
to her sister about her daughter's new young husband, then maybe it was
because she hadn't married Edward secretly. Again, I'm not arguing against
the precontract, just trying to work it all out.
Karen
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:05:32 -0000
To: >
Subject: Re: Documentary
Hilary wrote:
>
> You know, overnight I came up with the same question about Elizabeth Mowbray.
She was by all accounts a feisty lady (think she died in 1595) and she would
have surely sprung to the defense of her sister. She had after all little to
lose, her daughter (wife of ROY) was dead, a lot of the Mowbray lands had gone
to the Crown and John Howard was now Duke of Norfolk.
> The other thing is that Parliament (and the City) supported all this. Their
support was not always that easy to gain - think of how Warwick floundered
during the Readeption. And Edward IV had been popular with them.
> That's another reason 'I believe'. Hilary
Carol responds:
1495, right? I agree with your reasons why the duchess would have spoken up
after Titulus Regius if the allegations were false. But assuming that we're
right that she knew about the precontract, why would she have allowed her
daughter to marry a boy that she knew was illegitimate? It's easy to see why
*Edward* would want the Mowbray marriage. It would ensure Elizabeth M's
silence as long as her daughter was alive. But what was the advantage for
the Mowbrays? (Was Eleanor still alive at the time of the marriage? I doubt
that she would have approved of it!)
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 18:21:49
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Katherine Dowager Duchess of Norfolk was Warwick's aunt.
Carol responds:
Right. I knew that. She was Cecily Neville's older sister. (Slip of the mental cogs.) I still don't think that Warwick would have liked that marriage much. It was labeled "the diabolical marriage" (I forget by whom).
Karen wrote:
> Anthony Wydeville married twice. The name of his second wife slips my mind at the moment. [snip]
Carol responds:
His second wife was Mary Fitz-Lewis. I don't know the date of the marriage or anything about her except that her father's name was Henry and both marriages were childless. But his first wife, Baroness Scales, died in 1473, so Warwick, who died in April 1471, couldn't have had an opinion on the matter. And. of course, it was the first marriage that raised Anthony to the rank of Lord Scales. (Ironically, Warwick's murder of Anthony's father raised Anthony to the rank of Earl Rivers! It didn't stop the Rivers from rising, as Edward's jester is alleged to have said (in conjunction with Woodville influence, not with the illegal executions of Rivers and his youngest son.)
Karen wrote:
> Warwick had problems not only with the elevation of the Wydevilles, but also the Herberts. (And he got rid of them, as well.) While he might have been happy with marriages between his children and Edward's, I don't think he'd have countenanced, for one moment, marriages to the Queen's sons [by her first husband].
Carol responds:
I agree with you. Sir John Grey was a mere knight, and Lancastrian at that (as was Elizabeth Woodville's father, Sir Richard, before Henry VI made him a baron and Edward IV made him an earl in 1466. Warwick would have found the elevation of the entire family distasteful. He had already "rated" them after Sir Richard had had the effrontery to secretly marry Jacquetta, widow of Henry Vi's uncle, John Duke of Bedford. I think he would have seen the whole matter, especially the marriages, as polluting the noble bloodlines and, more important, keeping the older nobility from its rightful inheritance. (Of course, Warwick's title came from his wife, but he was also (correct me if I'm wrong) Earl of Salisbury through inheritance after his father's death, and the Nevilles (the Earl of Salisbury and his full brothers and sisters) had noble blood (albeit legitimized) through their Beaufort mother, so Warwick was not himself an upstart. (He did conveniently ignore Jacquetta's connections to European nobility, though.)
Just talking. I have no emotional stake in this discussion and am just trying to get my facts straight.
Carol
>
> Carol
>
> Katherine Dowager Duchess of Norfolk was Warwick's aunt.
Carol responds:
Right. I knew that. She was Cecily Neville's older sister. (Slip of the mental cogs.) I still don't think that Warwick would have liked that marriage much. It was labeled "the diabolical marriage" (I forget by whom).
Karen wrote:
> Anthony Wydeville married twice. The name of his second wife slips my mind at the moment. [snip]
Carol responds:
His second wife was Mary Fitz-Lewis. I don't know the date of the marriage or anything about her except that her father's name was Henry and both marriages were childless. But his first wife, Baroness Scales, died in 1473, so Warwick, who died in April 1471, couldn't have had an opinion on the matter. And. of course, it was the first marriage that raised Anthony to the rank of Lord Scales. (Ironically, Warwick's murder of Anthony's father raised Anthony to the rank of Earl Rivers! It didn't stop the Rivers from rising, as Edward's jester is alleged to have said (in conjunction with Woodville influence, not with the illegal executions of Rivers and his youngest son.)
Karen wrote:
> Warwick had problems not only with the elevation of the Wydevilles, but also the Herberts. (And he got rid of them, as well.) While he might have been happy with marriages between his children and Edward's, I don't think he'd have countenanced, for one moment, marriages to the Queen's sons [by her first husband].
Carol responds:
I agree with you. Sir John Grey was a mere knight, and Lancastrian at that (as was Elizabeth Woodville's father, Sir Richard, before Henry VI made him a baron and Edward IV made him an earl in 1466. Warwick would have found the elevation of the entire family distasteful. He had already "rated" them after Sir Richard had had the effrontery to secretly marry Jacquetta, widow of Henry Vi's uncle, John Duke of Bedford. I think he would have seen the whole matter, especially the marriages, as polluting the noble bloodlines and, more important, keeping the older nobility from its rightful inheritance. (Of course, Warwick's title came from his wife, but he was also (correct me if I'm wrong) Earl of Salisbury through inheritance after his father's death, and the Nevilles (the Earl of Salisbury and his full brothers and sisters) had noble blood (albeit legitimized) through their Beaufort mother, so Warwick was not himself an upstart. (He did conveniently ignore Jacquetta's connections to European nobility, though.)
Just talking. I have no emotional stake in this discussion and am just trying to get my facts straight.
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-01-31 23:44:19
Currently about 8,700 entries, plus wives.
Should run to over 10,000 eventually. I've skipped over the Irish families in this run, this will be dealt with next, along with more entries for heiresses in their own right.
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 2:12
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
103 Nevills are barely enough!
This sounds like exhausting work.
Karen
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:15:26 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
My sheet currently has 103 Nevilles, plus of course the various daughters
who married into the nobility and are listed in the "spouses" column.
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3
listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
Should run to over 10,000 eventually. I've skipped over the Irish families in this run, this will be dealt with next, along with more entries for heiresses in their own right.
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 2:12
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
103 Nevills are barely enough!
This sounds like exhausting work.
Karen
From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:15:26 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
My sheet currently has 103 Nevilles, plus of course the various daughters
who married into the nobility and are listed in the "spouses" column.
All of these are descendants of the early Nevilles of Raby, with just the 3
listed Nevilles of Gayhurst (I think) unrelated.
Re: Documentary
2013-02-02 13:51:03
Okay,
I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
"Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
Marie
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
> Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
> right quote in the text.
>
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
> bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
> injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
> thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
> that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
> contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
> highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
> man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
> possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
> it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
> here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
>
> I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
> misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
> anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
> far better job of it than this.
>
> I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
> Edward/Eleanor marriage.
>
> It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
> relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
> after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
> Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
> then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
> be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
> Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
> France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
> and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
> potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
> this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
> not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
>
> Karen
> '
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
> sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> > It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
> that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
> anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
> that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
>
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
> the original passage and note from your earlier post:
>
> "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
> king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
> howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
> yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
> >
> The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
> woman in the E of Warwickes house."
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
> spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
> with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
> these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
> well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
> Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
> house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
> the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
> agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
> Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
> "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
> text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
> historian, by the way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
> Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
> additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
> please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
> I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
"Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
Marie
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
> Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
> right quote in the text.
>
> I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
> bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
>
> "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
> injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
> thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
> that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
> contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
> highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
> man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
> possible"
>
> 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
> it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
> here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
>
> I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
> misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
> anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
> far better job of it than this.
>
> I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
> Edward/Eleanor marriage.
>
> It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
> relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
> after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
> Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
> then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
> be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
> Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
> France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
> and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
> potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
> this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
> not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
>
> Karen
> '
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
> sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> > It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
> that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
> anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
> that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
>
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
> the original passage and note from your earlier post:
>
> "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
> king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
> howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
> yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
> >
> The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
> woman in the E of Warwickes house."
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
> spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
> with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
> these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
> well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
> Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
> house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
> the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
> agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
> Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
> "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
> text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
> historian, by the way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
> Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
> additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
> please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
> I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-02-02 15:02:42
I should have added that the marginal note was not in Vergil's original. Vergil tells us he doesn't know - "nescio" - what Edward is supposed to have done. It is merely built up from Vergil's surmising. I don't know whether it is thought to be the work of the translator (c. 1540s, I think), or of a later editor.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Okay,
>
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
> > Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
> > right quote in the text.
> >
> > I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
> > bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
> >
> > "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
> > injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
> > thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
> > that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
> > contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
> > highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
> > man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
> > possible"
> >
> > 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
> > it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
> > here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
> >
> > I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
> > misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
> > anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
> > far better job of it than this.
> >
> > I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
> > Edward/Eleanor marriage.
> >
> > It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
> > relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
> > after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
> > Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
> > then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
> > be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
> > Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
> > France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
> > and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
> > potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
> > this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
> > not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
> >
> > Karen
> > '
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> > problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
> > sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> > > It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
> > that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
> > anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
> > that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
> > the original passage and note from your earlier post:
> >
> > "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
> > king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
> > howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
> > yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
> > >
> > The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
> > woman in the E of Warwickes house."
> >
> > I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
> > spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
> > with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
> > these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
> >
> > I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
> > well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
> > Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
> > house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
> > the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
> > agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
> > Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
> > "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
> > text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
> > historian, by the way.)
> >
> > In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
> > Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
> > additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
> > please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
> > I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Okay,
>
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The original Latin would be good, and I could probably find it online.
> > Trouble is, my Latin isn't up to much and it'd take me hours to find the
> > right quote in the text.
> >
> > I snipped the quote quite tightly to get at the wording (in trans) of the
> > bit under discussion at the time. I'll give the following few lines:
> >
> > "But whatsoever the matter was for the whiche they felle owt, whether for
> > injury offeryd, or envye of authorytie, so it came to passe, that after
> > thearle had intelligence from his frindes of the kinges secret maryage, and
> > that his dealinge in the ambassage with king Lewys, as touching the
> > contractyng of this new affynytie, fell owt in vane and to no purpose, he so
> > highly began to be angry thereat, that furthwith he adjugyd king Edward as a
> > man unwoorthy of the regall scepter, mete to be expellyd by all meanes
> > possible"
> >
> > 'But whatsoever the matter was for which they felle owt" includes whatever
> > it was that happened in the earl's house. Vergil does conflate things a bit
> > here, Warwick wasn't planning to overthrow Edward in 1464.
> >
> > I think it highly unlikely that rumours would be circulating about Edward
> > misbehaving in Warwick's house without him knowing about it. I didn't say
> > anything about Warwick 'spreading rumours'. When he did do that, he did a
> > far better job of it than this.
> >
> > I really don't think this can stand as independent evidence of the
> > Edward/Eleanor marriage.
> >
> > It also leads to yet another question. I understand (but I don't have the
> > relevant source handy, possibly Croyland?) that there was some attempt,
> > after the revelation of the marriage to EW, to find a way to overturn it.
> > Again, if Warwick knew of any previous marriage, why didn't be mention it
> > then? It would have been all over for Elizabeth. Even more astonishing would
> > be Warwick's role (whatever it was) in negotiating a marriage with Bona of
> > Savoy, if he knew Edward was already married. I know Warwick wasn't in
> > France but in Scotland at the time, but he supported the marriage to Bona,
> > and surely no-one would risk the ire of the king of France by discussing a
> > potential marriage to a king who was already married. The more I examine
> > this, the less likely it is that Warwick knew anything about it. Which is
> > not proof that the marriage didn't take place.
> >
> > Karen
> > '
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:04:34 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > An interpretation of the passage in Vergil to refer to Eleanor Butler is
> > problematic for me in that it requires a great deal of convoluted thinking to
> > sustain it. (What I see as convoluted thinking, you may well not agree.)
> > > It is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection from Edward, which implies
> > that Warwick knew about it and was outraged. This is simply not supported by
> > anything in the record. Warwick wasn't known for keeping quiet about the things
> > that outraged him. If Warwick knew about the marriage, we'd know that he knew.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think this is the chief point of our disagreement. I'm going to requote
> > the original passage and note from your earlier post:
> >
> > "and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyed, that
> > king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earles
> > howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye uppon
> > yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately."
> > >
> > The marginal note says: "E 4 is supposed to deflowre some
> > woman in the E of Warwickes house."
> >
> > I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
> > spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected
> > with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives
> > these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
> >
> > I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
> > well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
> > Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's
> > house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is
> > the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we
> > agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So
> > Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the
> > "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main
> > text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a
> > historian, by the way.)
> >
> > In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
> > Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
> > additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading,
> > please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than
> > I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Documentary
2013-02-02 16:48:25
Marie wrote:
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
Carol responds:
Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note) we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman, whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
Carol
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in the Earl's house he did something - I know not what – that was far from honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the details.
Carol responds:
Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note) we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman, whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-02-03 02:50:08
Carol
I think you've hit the nail on the head! Though I didn't express myself well
at the time, it's as I suggested earlier: this kind of vague rumour can be
interpreted in so many ways. I still don't think there's enough to link it
anyone specifically. If it was something that bothered Warwick, it doesn't
seem sufficiently important for him to mention (so far as we know) in any
other source. But then, when the Fitzhugh Papers are unearthed from that
abandoned cellar in Ravensworth, we're going to know everything! (If only
one of us finds our favourite secret hoard, we'll be miles ahead.)
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Marie wrote:
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English
language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic
historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I
can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in
the Earl's house he did something - I know not what ? that was far from
honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad
with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have
checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object
is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to
put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But
he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not
Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that
Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst
staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the
details.
Carol responds:
Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note)
we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount
of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be
anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's
disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be
just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman,
whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not
necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she
wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never
used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it
seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable
act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have
related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have
involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note
to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
Carol
I think you've hit the nail on the head! Though I didn't express myself well
at the time, it's as I suggested earlier: this kind of vague rumour can be
interpreted in so many ways. I still don't think there's enough to link it
anyone specifically. If it was something that bothered Warwick, it doesn't
seem sufficiently important for him to mention (so far as we know) in any
other source. But then, when the Fitzhugh Papers are unearthed from that
abandoned cellar in Ravensworth, we're going to know everything! (If only
one of us finds our favourite secret hoard, we'll be miles ahead.)
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Documentary
Marie wrote:
> I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English
language version quoted below.
>
> Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic
historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I
can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in
the Earl's house he did something - I know not what ? that was far from
honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad
with desire for them."
> 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have
checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object
is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to
put it more crudely).
> Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But
he is merely speculating.
> The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
>
> The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not
Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
>
> So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that
Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst
staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the
details.
Carol responds:
Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note)
we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount
of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be
anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's
disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be
just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman,
whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not
necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she
wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never
used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it
seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable
act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have
related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have
involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note
to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
Carol
Re: Documentary
2013-02-03 14:40:40
This is probably out of left field, but I've always found it interesting that this rumor ("I've heard tell Edward jumped a woman in Warwick's household and Warwick was really pissed at him about it") is so close to More going, "There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that Edward precontracted with Elizabeth Lucy." People who knew the real course of events would go, "But... but the woman in question wasn't Elizabeth Lucy!" and everyone outside the inner circle would say, "Oh, so no precontract, then."
Maybe the rumor circulated deliberately as a propaganda attempt to explain away Warwick's well-publicized rage at Edward's secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville: if you look into that, it leads you logically to Titulus Regius and the revelation that it wasn't the first time he promised marriage to an otherwise unattainable source of obsession.
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I think you've hit the nail on the head! Though I didn't express myself well
> at the time, it's as I suggested earlier: this kind of vague rumour can be
> interpreted in so many ways. I still don't think there's enough to link it
> anyone specifically. If it was something that bothered Warwick, it doesn't
> seem sufficiently important for him to mention (so far as we know) in any
> other source. But then, when the Fitzhugh Papers are unearthed from that
> abandoned cellar in Ravensworth, we're going to know everything! (If only
> one of us finds our favourite secret hoard, we'll be miles ahead.)
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English
> language version quoted below.
> >
> > Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic
> historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I
> can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> > "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in
> the Earl's house he did something - I know not what ? that was far from
> honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad
> with desire for them."
> > 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have
> checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object
> is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to
> put it more crudely).
> > Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But
> he is merely speculating.
> > The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
> >
> > The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not
> Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
> >
> > So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that
> Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst
> staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the
> details.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note)
> we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount
> of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be
> anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's
> disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be
> just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman,
> whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not
> necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she
> wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never
> used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it
> seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable
> act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have
> related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have
> involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note
> to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe the rumor circulated deliberately as a propaganda attempt to explain away Warwick's well-publicized rage at Edward's secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville: if you look into that, it leads you logically to Titulus Regius and the revelation that it wasn't the first time he promised marriage to an otherwise unattainable source of obsession.
--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I think you've hit the nail on the head! Though I didn't express myself well
> at the time, it's as I suggested earlier: this kind of vague rumour can be
> interpreted in so many ways. I still don't think there's enough to link it
> anyone specifically. If it was something that bothered Warwick, it doesn't
> seem sufficiently important for him to mention (so far as we know) in any
> other source. But then, when the Fitzhugh Papers are unearthed from that
> abandoned cellar in Ravensworth, we're going to know everything! (If only
> one of us finds our favourite secret hoard, we'll be miles ahead.)
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:24 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Documentary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > I've had a look at the Latin, and at the preface to the published English
> language version quoted below.
> >
> > Now, my Latin is not really up to proper writing - okay for formulaic
> historical docs like wills and indictments - but having said that, I do think I
> can roughly translate this short passage, so here goes:-
> > "Nor may what they say of Edward be inconsistent with the truth, ie that in
> the Earl's house he did something - I know not what ? that was far from
> honourable, for he was a man who easily turned his eye to maidens and went mad
> with desire for them."
> > 'deperiret' could mean 'ruined' or 'fell desperately in love with', but I have
> checked out other examples on the internet and it does seem that when the object
> is a woman it means being eaten up with love for her (or with sexual desire to
> put it more crudely).
> > Vergil uses the word 'puellis' so he is referring to maidens, not women. But
> he is merely speculating.
> > The rest of the passage quoted is not relevant.
> >
> > The preface to the English version indicates that the translator was not
> Vergil himself, so he was only drawing on what Vergil had written in Latin.
> >
> > So in a nutshell, there was, at the time Vergil was writing, a rumour that
> Edward had angered Warwick by doing something very dishonourable either whilst
> staying with him or to a member of his household, but Vergil was never given the
> details.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Which takes us back to square one, especially since the passage (and note)
> we were so painstakingly analyzing were the translator's! Given the amount
> of time that had passed and the vagueness of the rumor, the woman could be
> anyone if the incident happened at all, and his juxtaposition of Warwick's
> disaffection with Edward with this supposes dishonorable act seems to be
> just a guess. I absolutely agree that he's merely speculating. The woman,
> whoever she was, assuming that she existed, could have been anyone, not
> necessarily a virgin as Vergil speculates. We can rest assured that she
> wasn't Anne or Isabel (or their mother). Since Warwick to my knowledge never
> used this particular piece of ammunition in his campaign against Edward, it
> seems likely that Vergil is combining two unrelated events, the dishonorable
> act and Warwick's anger at Edward. I still think that the rumor could have
> related to Eleanor Butler and stemmed from a later time, but it could have
> involved Margaret Lucy or some unknown serving woman or no one at all. Note
> to Polydore Vergil: Don't repeat vague, unsubstantiated rumors!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Documentary
2013-02-06 01:49:35
On 1/28/2013 1:04 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it. Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
I'd say it's very important what was said immediately before and after
the quoted passage to get a better idea of when it is supposed to have
occured.
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house." That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it. Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
I'd say it's very important what was said immediately before and after
the quoted passage to get a better idea of when it is supposed to have
occured.
Re: Documentary
2013-02-06 02:28:01
Ed
I did include, later in the conversation, the bit that followed the original
quote. What precedes it is general reportage of Warwick's disaffection with
Edward IV.
Karen
From: Ed Simons <easimons@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:59:17 -0700
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
On 1/28/2013 1:04 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with
Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these
indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house."
That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the
deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is
improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is
apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in
the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less
specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the
way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please
provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The
original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
I'd say it's very important what was said immediately before and after
the quoted passage to get a better idea of when it is supposed to have
occured.
I did include, later in the conversation, the bit that followed the original
quote. What precedes it is general reportage of Warwick's disaffection with
Edward IV.
Karen
From: Ed Simons <easimons@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:59:17 -0700
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Documentary
On 1/28/2013 1:04 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
>
> I see no indication of Warwick's knowing about it and being outraged or
spreading rumors, nor any indication that the rumor is explicitly connected with
Warwick's defection. Possibly, there's a surrounding context that gives these
indications, but, if so, you haven't quoted it.
>
> I read the passage as meaning essentially, "I've heard a rumor, which could
well be true given King Edward's inordinate love of young ladies, that King
Edward attempted to perform some 'unhonest' act in the Earl of Warwick's house."
That's all it says. The note *assumes* that the "unhonest act" is the
deflowering of some unnamed woman *in* Warwick's house, an act that we agree is
improbable in the extreme given Warwick's pride and temper. So Vergil is
apparently making his own assumptions as to the nature of the "unhonest act" in
the note since the rumor itself as recorded in the main text is much less
specific. (Makes him seem like an old gossip rather than a historian, by the
way.)
>
> In other words, as I keep saying, Warwick himself has nothing to do with it.
Or if he does, Vergil doesn't say so in the quoted passage. If you have
additional context that mentions Warwick's outrage or rumor-spreading, please
provide it as you seem to have easier access to the 1534 edition than I do. The
original Latin would be better still if anyone can provide it.
>
> Carol
>
>
I'd say it's very important what was said immediately before and after
the quoted passage to get a better idea of when it is supposed to have
occured.
Documentary
2013-02-07 09:59:27
Has nobody else noticed?
As is their wont these days as soon as the end titles of a programme begin they squeeze the frame and start shouting at you about what's on somewhere else and on other channels, and this time, at the end of the film about Richard, up pops Starkey who is coming on next on another channel! Seeing his face just did it for me! I was deeply moved by the descriptions of the wounds to Richard's body, and felt insulted that the last image of the film should be of that Tudor lover!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
As is their wont these days as soon as the end titles of a programme begin they squeeze the frame and start shouting at you about what's on somewhere else and on other channels, and this time, at the end of the film about Richard, up pops Starkey who is coming on next on another channel! Seeing his face just did it for me! I was deeply moved by the descriptions of the wounds to Richard's body, and felt insulted that the last image of the film should be of that Tudor lover!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Documentary
2013-02-07 14:24:32
Yes I did. They do it all the time of course (and it drives me nuts regardless of the programme) and obviously to them it's just another history programme so lump it together. The fact that Starkey hates Richard with a passion is beyond them. I really don't understand why the antis are SO anti, if you get my drift. Perhaps Starkey is Margaret Beaufort reincarnated?
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 9:59
Subject: Documentary
Has nobody else noticed?
As is their wont these days as soon as the end titles of a programme begin they squeeze the frame and start shouting at you about what's on somewhere else and on other channels, and this time, at the end of the film about Richard, up pops Starkey who is coming on next on another channel! Seeing his face just did it for me! I was deeply moved by the descriptions of the wounds to Richard's body, and felt insulted that the last image of the film should be of that Tudor lover!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 9:59
Subject: Documentary
Has nobody else noticed?
As is their wont these days as soon as the end titles of a programme begin they squeeze the frame and start shouting at you about what's on somewhere else and on other channels, and this time, at the end of the film about Richard, up pops Starkey who is coming on next on another channel! Seeing his face just did it for me! I was deeply moved by the descriptions of the wounds to Richard's body, and felt insulted that the last image of the film should be of that Tudor lover!
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.