Hi All

Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.

Marie

Hi, Marie -



Hey, great to see you back! Hope you are doing well. I hope some others here
may be able to fill you in, because I have been on a bit of a hiatus myself.
(smile) I've suddenly found I've got to pack in my schedule if I hope to get
my MA degree by Spring 2014, so I just haven't had much time to participate
here in the past few weeks.



I know that there is to be a Press Conference this coming Monday, and the
C4 documentary is scheduled to be broadcast for the lucky people living in
the UK.



Hope you are keeping well!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:31 PM
To:
Subject: Hi All






Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody
can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.

Marie

They think they have found R3
The rest is spurious
There you are now up to date! Pleased to see you back
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Marie
>
>

Dear Marie -

Ignore my email. George just told you all you need to know.



(ROFLMAO!)



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Hi All





They think they have found R3
The rest is spurious
There you are now up to date! Pleased to see you back
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> > wrote:

>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Marie
>
>

Welcome back Marie.    George's e mail says it all except I think they "know" they have found him.  WE will all find out on Monday morning and I realise I am very lucky to be able to see it all live, as it were.  Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am! 


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 21:08
Subject: Re: Hi All

 
They think they have found R3
The rest is spurious
There you are now up to date! Pleased to see you back
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Marie
>
>

Welcome back Marie...you have been missed...Eileen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Welcome back Marie.    George's e mail says it all except I think they "know" they have found him.  WE will all find out on Monday morning and I realise I am very lucky to be able to see it all live, as it were.  Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am! 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: ""
> Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013, 21:08
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>  
> They think they have found R3
> The rest is spurious
> There you are now up to date! Pleased to see you back
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great to see you back, Marie. There was a rumour about Robinson narrating Monday night but that is unfounded. There have been rumours about the EX-Princes featuring in the programme but there is no evidence of this.
I think we have all agreed to "KEEP CALM AND WATCH IT FIRST".

Oh, Edward's first marriage has featured heavily in the discussions. Can you drop me a line?

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:31 PM
Subject: Hi All




Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.

Marie

Thanks George & Johanne. I've been kept up to date with RIII Soc news - the press conference and documentary dates, though. I was just wondering whether I'd missed any interesting discussions on the forum.
Marie


--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> They think they have found R3
> The rest is spurious
> There you are now up to date! Pleased to see you back
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> >
> > Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Will do. Also thanks to Eileen for the welcome. Nice to be back.
Marie


--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Great to see you back, Marie. There was a rumour about Robinson narrating Monday night but that is unfounded. There have been rumours about the EX-Princes featuring in the programme but there is no evidence of this.
> I think we have all agreed to "KEEP CALM AND WATCH IT FIRST".
>
> Oh, Edward's first marriage has featured heavily in the discussions. Can you drop me a line?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:31 PM
> Subject: Hi All
>
>
>
>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. It's great to have you back. One topic we've discussed a lot lately is the precontract, including the possibility that Vergil was alluding to it in his rumor about Edward IV's "unhonest act" in connection with a lady associated with Warwick. If you do a site search for posts between Christmas and today containing the word "precontract," you'll stay busy for quite a while! Your article responding to Michael Hicks was also mentioned (with gratitude) a couple of times.

Of course, a lot of the recent discussion has involved the upcoming documentary, which those of us outside the UK are hoping to see with a little help from one of our members.

Carol

Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
>.
.
.
.
Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am! 

Your uncle has been found unwell? He could easily be your multiple great-uncle?

----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Hi All



Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
>.
.
.
.
Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am!Â

Nice try but I think a more subtle idea might be to schedule a meeting for my boss that starts at 10.00am - outside our building!
 
 

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 9:03
Subject: Re: Re: Hi All

 
Your uncle has been found unwell? He could easily be your multiple great-uncle?

----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Hi All

Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
>.
.
.
.
Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am!Â

Just for anyone who hasn't seen it, this is the blutrb for the Channel 4 programme:-



When a skeleton was reported found under a Leicester council car park in September 2012, the news broke around the world. Could it be the remains, lost for 500 years, of England's most infamous king?

In a world exclusive, Channel 4 has the full inside story of the hunt for Richard III.

The discovery of the body and the battery of scientific tests to establish its identity have been carried out in complete secrecy, with no footage of them seen by anyone but the investigating team.

But this programme - made by the only team allowed to follow the scientists - tells every step, twist and turn of the story.

It unveils a brand new facial reconstruction made from the skull and - in scenes shot just hours before broadcast - reveals the results of the final tests that confirm or deny the body's identity.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Great to see you back, Marie. There was a rumour about Robinson narrating Monday night but that is unfounded. There have been rumours about the EX-Princes featuring in the programme but there is no evidence of this.
> I think we have all agreed to "KEEP CALM AND WATCH IT FIRST".
>
> Oh, Edward's first marriage has featured heavily in the discussions. Can you drop me a line?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:31 PM
> Subject: Hi All
>
>
>
>
> Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. It's great to have you back. One topic we've discussed a lot lately is the precontract, including the possibility that Vergil was alluding to it in his rumor about Edward IV's "unhonest act" in connection with a lady associated with Warwick. If you do a site search for posts between Christmas and today containing the word "precontract," you'll stay busy for quite a while! Your article responding to Michael Hicks was also mentioned (with gratitude) a couple of times.
>
> Of course, a lot of the recent discussion has involved the upcoming documentary, which those of us outside the UK are hoping to see with a little help from one of our members.
>
> Carol
>


Hi Carol,
I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.
Marie

Lovely indeed to see you back Marie. Yes I have just read it and there are some nice comments beneath it.

On a totally different topic have you ever looked at the Coventry Leet Books?

Hilary
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Just for anyone who hasn't seen it, this is the blutrb for the Channel 4 programme:-
>
>
>
> When a skeleton was reported found under a Leicester council car park in September 2012, the news broke around the world. Could it be the remains, lost for 500 years, of England's most infamous king?
>
> In a world exclusive, Channel 4 has the full inside story of the hunt for Richard III.
>
> The discovery of the body and the battery of scientific tests to establish its identity have been carried out in complete secrecy, with no footage of them seen by anyone but the investigating team.
>
> But this programme - made by the only team allowed to follow the scientists - tells every step, twist and turn of the story.
>
> It unveils a brand new facial reconstruction made from the skull and - in scenes shot just hours before broadcast - reveals the results of the final tests that confirm or deny the body's identity.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Great to see you back, Marie. There was a rumour about Robinson narrating Monday night but that is unfounded. There have been rumours about the EX-Princes featuring in the programme but there is no evidence of this.
> > I think we have all agreed to "KEEP CALM AND WATCH IT FIRST".
> >
> > Oh, Edward's first marriage has featured heavily in the discussions. Can you drop me a line?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:31 PM
> > Subject: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie, wow! Your knowledge is so impressive! Now we know what the lady from Warwick's household means:)

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

On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:08 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just saying hello after a bit of an absence, and maybe wondering if anybody can update me on what I might have missed since before Christmas.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, Marie. It's great to have you back. One topic we've discussed a lot lately is the precontract, including the possibility that Vergil was alluding to it in his rumor about Edward IV's "unhonest act" in connection with a lady associated with Warwick. If you do a site search for posts between Christmas and today containing the word "precontract," you'll stay busy for quite a while! Your article responding to Michael Hicks was also mentioned (with gratitude) a couple of times.
> >
> > Of course, a lot of the recent discussion has involved the upcoming documentary, which those of us outside the UK are hoping to see with a little help from one of our members.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> Hi Carol,
> I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
> Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.
> Marie
>
>

Marie...I think you may well have cracked it...Eileen

> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >

> >
> > Hi Carol,
> > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
> > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.
> > Marie
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:

> Hi Carol,
> I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
> Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way, he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I like that phrase for some reason.)

I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor. He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if you prefer).

I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong first name. Any theories?

Carol

Marie

I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
straight in my head.)

Karen



From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hi All






Marie wrote:

> Hi Carol,
> I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because
I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was
Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady
Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not
Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections,
plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
eldest sister quite well.
> Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered
that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
all.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
like that phrase for some reason.)

I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
you prefer).

I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
first name. Any theories?

Carol

Homo lactoferens! It took 24 House and a Cambridge education to get you that Cheers Hilary

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Your uncle has been found unwell? He could easily be your multiple great-uncle?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>
>
> Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> >.
> .
> .
> .
> Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am!Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

hours, hours, hours

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Homo lactoferens! It took 24 House and a Cambridge education to get you that Cheers Hilary
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Your uncle has been found unwell? He could easily be your multiple great-uncle?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> > Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?
> >
> > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > >.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am!Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Carol,

I haven't rechecked Vergil's wording, but the fling with Lady Lucy belonged to the early years of Edward's reign - Margaret died, already spurned, in 1466. So More and Vergil were writing about things that had only ever been the subject of gossip and happenedforty or more years earlier.
My original suggestion on this forum was that her name may have got confused with that of Mistress Shore, who was indeed an Elizabeth and whose maiden name also began with an L. Funnily enough, Michael Hicks makes the same suggestion in his 'Edward V', which was written afterwards - just whilst we're on the subject of non-members being able to read our posts....
At any rate, if Lady Lucy was Margaret FitzLewis, then she obviously was not the mother of Arthur Wayte as well, Buck notwithstanding; this is hardly surprising as their careers suggest a probable age difference between them of roughly 20 years! Arthur's mother, however, may (very tentative may here) have been called Elizabeth too. Thomas Wayte's widow, his young second wife Elizabeth, died in London in 1487, and although she makes no mention of Arthur in her will she does mention a bastard daughter Beatrice.

The confusion with Mistress Shore's name could have passed unnoticed because none of the Tudor writers ventured a first name for Shore's wife; it was only when she became the subject of a play that it had to be reinvented and she ended up as 'Jane'.

Marie



--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Hi Carol,
> > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
> > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way, he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I like that phrase for some reason.)
>
> I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor. He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if you prefer).
>
> I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong first name. Any theories?
>
> Carol
>

Liz...when in doubt I always find it is best to fake amnesia...."who am I, where am I?' that sort of thing...when found in a tricky situation...:0) Eileen

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Nice try but I think a more subtle idea might be to schedule a meeting for my boss that starts at 10.00am - outside our building!
>  
>  
>
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 9:03
> Subject: Re: Re: Hi All
>
>  
> Your uncle has been found unwell? He could easily be your multiple great-uncle?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
> Erm... tell them it's a family emergency?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> >.
> .
> .
> .
> Of course one of my colleagues and I are trying to work out how to terminate the weekly team meeting a bit early so we can rush back to our desks to watch the press conference at 10.00am!Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, again, Marie-



Since you have made a timely return, perhaps you can help me with a question
regarding something that came up here just after I returned and before you
returned.



Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents
that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone
in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one
of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
documents.



Unfortunately I don't have the message to hand - can you elucidate the
matter for us? Was it Polydore Vergil or another Vergil? Or perhaps both?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Hi All






Hi Carol,

I haven't rechecked Vergil's wording, but the fling with Lady Lucy belonged
to the early years of Edward's reign - Margaret died, already spurned, in
1466. So More and Vergil were writing about things that had only ever been
the subject of gossip and happenedforty or more years earlier.
My original suggestion on this forum was that her name may have got confused
with that of Mistress Shore, who was indeed an Elizabeth and whose maiden
name also began with an L. Funnily enough, Michael Hicks makes the same
suggestion in his 'Edward V', which was written afterwards - just whilst
we're on the subject of non-members being able to read our posts....
At any rate, if Lady Lucy was Margaret FitzLewis, then she obviously was not
the mother of Arthur Wayte as well, Buck notwithstanding; this is hardly
surprising as their careers suggest a probable age difference between them
of roughly 20 years! Arthur's mother, however, may (very tentative may here)
have been called Elizabeth too. Thomas Wayte's widow, his young second wife
Elizabeth, died in London in 1487, and although she makes no mention of
Arthur in her will she does mention a bastard daughter Beatrice.

The confusion with Mistress Shore's name could have passed unnoticed because
none of the Tudor writers ventured a first name for Shore's wife; it was
only when she became the subject of a play that it had to be reinvented and
she ended up as 'Jane'.

Marie

He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did not predecease him.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> straight in my head.)
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Hi Carol,
> > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because
> I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
> called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was
> Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady
> Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not
> Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections,
> plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
> attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
> and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
> eldest sister quite well.
> > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered
> that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
> bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
> Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
> all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
> he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
> like that phrase for some reason.)
>
> I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
> you prefer).
>
> I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> first name. Any theories?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah yes, I recall us challenging John on this point.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Hi All




Hi Carol,

I haven't rechecked Vergil's wording, but the fling with Lady Lucy belonged to the early years of Edward's reign - Margaret died, already spurned, in 1466. So More and Vergil were writing about things that had only ever been the subject of gossip and happenedforty or more years earlier.
My original suggestion on this forum was that her name may have got confused with that of Mistress Shore, who was indeed an Elizabeth and whose maiden name also began with an L. Funnily enough, Michael Hicks makes the same suggestion in his 'Edward V', which was written afterwards - just whilst we're on the subject of non-members being able to read our posts....
At any rate, if Lady Lucy was Margaret FitzLewis, then she obviously was not the mother of Arthur Wayte as well, Buck notwithstanding; this is hardly surprising as their careers suggest a probable age difference between them of roughly 20 years! Arthur's mother, however, may (very tentative may here) have been called Elizabeth too. Thomas Wayte's widow, his young second wife Elizabeth, died in London in 1487, and although she makes no mention of Arthur in her will she does mention a bastard daughter Beatrice.

The confusion with Mistress Shore's name could have passed unnoticed because none of the Tudor writers ventured a first name for Shore's wife; it was only when she became the subject of a play that it had to be reinvented and she ended up as 'Jane'.

Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Hi Carol,
> > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know, because I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but was Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton (Lady Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and not Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right connections, plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury), and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's eldest sister quite well.
> > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has discovered that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way, he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I like that phrase for some reason.)
>
> I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor. He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if you prefer).
>
> I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong first name. Any theories?
>
> Carol
>

Hi Johanne,

I don't know who ther other Vegil could have been - sounds fictional to me. There is no real reason to believe that Polydore Vergil destroyed documents, though. He had to be careful what he wrote, and was clearly well aware of the political requirements of his task, but I wouldn't go further than that. This article on the US website is good:-
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html

A lot of documents haven't survived, but that could be due to chance, or the new regime not immediately valuing them, or fire, damp and rats, who knows. Also, at the start of his reign Henry was referring to Richard as "Duke of Gloucester"; it may have taken a bit of time before he realised Richard's reign couldn't be whitewashed away.

Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, again, Marie-
>
>
>
> Since you have made a timely return, perhaps you can help me with a question
> regarding something that came up here just after I returned and before you
> returned.
>
>
>
> Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents
> that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone
> in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one
> of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
> documents.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I don't have the message to hand - can you elucidate the
> matter for us? Was it Polydore Vergil or another Vergil? Or perhaps both?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I haven't rechecked Vergil's wording, but the fling with Lady Lucy belonged
> to the early years of Edward's reign - Margaret died, already spurned, in
> 1466. So More and Vergil were writing about things that had only ever been
> the subject of gossip and happenedforty or more years earlier.
> My original suggestion on this forum was that her name may have got confused
> with that of Mistress Shore, who was indeed an Elizabeth and whose maiden
> name also began with an L. Funnily enough, Michael Hicks makes the same
> suggestion in his 'Edward V', which was written afterwards - just whilst
> we're on the subject of non-members being able to read our posts....
> At any rate, if Lady Lucy was Margaret FitzLewis, then she obviously was not
> the mother of Arthur Wayte as well, Buck notwithstanding; this is hardly
> surprising as their careers suggest a probable age difference between them
> of roughly 20 years! Arthur's mother, however, may (very tentative may here)
> have been called Elizabeth too. Thomas Wayte's widow, his young second wife
> Elizabeth, died in London in 1487, and although she makes no mention of
> Arthur in her will she does mention a bastard daughter Beatrice.
>
> The confusion with Mistress Shore's name could have passed unnoticed because
> none of the Tudor writers ventured a first name for Shore's wife; it was
> only when she became the subject of a play that it had to be reinvented and
> she ended up as 'Jane'.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie

Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to
track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
have any more information?

Oh, and welcome back.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hi All







He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John
Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
not predecease him.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> straight in my head.)
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Hi Carol,
> > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
because
> I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
> called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but
was
> Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton
(Lady
> Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and
not
> Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
connections,
> plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
> attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
> and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
> eldest sister quite well.
> > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
discovered
> that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
> bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
> Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
> all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
> he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
> like that phrase for some reason.)
>
> I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
> you prefer).
>
> I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> first name. Any theories?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There were two completely separate Sir William Lucys:-
1) Of Charlcote, Warwickshire, died 1466. Married first Elizabeth Percy, who predeceased him, then one Agnes, his widow.
2) Of Dallington, Northamptonshire (d. 1460). Left widow Margaret FitzLewis.
I'll post later on Margaret's family. I'm trying not to let swedes boil dry at present.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to
> track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
> married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
> who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
> you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
> Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
> Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
> have any more information?
>
> Oh, and welcome back.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Hi All
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John
> Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
> not predecease him.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> > straight in my head.)
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Carol,
> > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
> because
> > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
> > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but
> was
> > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton
> (Lady
> > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and
> not
> > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
> connections,
> > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
> > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
> > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
> > eldest sister quite well.
> > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
> discovered
> > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
> > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
> > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
> > all.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
> > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
> > like that phrase for some reason.)
> >
> > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
> > you prefer).
> >
> > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> > first name. Any theories?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol said:  I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong first name. Any theories?

Liz replied:  But why did they call Elizabeth Lambert/Shore by the name of Jane?  I'm sure I've read that she was not known as that by her contemporaries

Marie wrote:
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I haven't rechecked Vergil's wording, but the fling with Lady Lucy belonged to the early years of Edward's reign - Margaret died, already spurned, in 1466. So More and Vergil were writing about things that had only ever been the subject of gossip and happened forty or more years earlier.
> My original suggestion on this forum was that her name may have got confused with that of Mistress Shore, who was indeed an Elizabeth and whose maiden name also began with an L. Funnily enough, Michael Hicks makes the same suggestion in his 'Edward V', which was written afterwards - just whilst we're on the subject of non-members being able to read our posts....
> At any rate, if Lady Lucy was Margaret FitzLewis, then she obviously was not the mother of Arthur Wayte as well, Buck notwithstanding; this is hardly surprising as their careers suggest a probable age difference between them of roughly 20 years! Arthur's mother, however, may (very tentative may here) have been called Elizabeth too. Thomas Wayte's widow, his young second wife Elizabeth, died in London in 1487, and although she makes no mention of Arthur in her will she does mention a bastard daughter Beatrice.
>
> The confusion with Mistress Shore's name could have passed unnoticed because none of the Tudor writers ventured a first name for Shore's wife; it was only when she became the subject of a play that it had to be reinvented and she ended up as 'Jane'.
>
> Marie

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Thanks for answering my question about Sir Thomas More. If you have a chance to read our thread, which relates to Eleanor Butler rather than Lady Lucy, you'll find that Karen quoted Vergil's wording (and in a later post brought in the context relating to Warwick, which threw a new light on the discussion). She also quoted the original Latin, which neither of us has the skill to translate. If you don't have time to look up those posts, I can locate them for you. That way, you could see what we were actually discussing and put in your two cents. (It would be best to read the whole thread, which I'm afraid got a bit heated before we understood each other's positions. We've pretty much reached a stalemate. Whether the points we presented would apply to Lady Lucy, I don't know. Neither of us was aware that she was a candidate for Vergil's wronged lady.

BTW, I wonder if More deliberately conflated Margaret Lucy with Elizabeth Lambert (whom he calls "Mistress Shore"). I wouldn't put it past him.

Carol

Carol

Okay, Anne Montagu, daughter of John, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, married three times:-
1) Sir Richard Hankeford;
2) Sir Lewis John as his second wife - his children were surnamed FitzLewis;
3) John Holland, Duke of Exeter, as his third wife.
She outlived Exeter by about a decade and was at loggerheads with her stepson, Duke Henry, about the inheritance, particularly some jewels.

Margaret was traditionally thought to have been a daughter of the first marriage, so you may find her on the internet somewhere as Margaret Hankeford or Hankford. Hicks has established, from the Salisbury Roll, that she was in fact a daughter of Lewis John; I'm sure he is right - the sibling she was particularly close to was John FitzLewis.
If you want more information I would recommend you get hold of a copy of Hicks' 'Edward V' - he has done the real research and sets it out in his book; I just had the germ of an idea.

Marie



--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> There were two completely separate Sir William Lucys:-
> 1) Of Charlcote, Warwickshire, died 1466. Married first Elizabeth Percy, who predeceased him, then one Agnes, his widow.
> 2) Of Dallington, Northamptonshire (d. 1460). Left widow Margaret FitzLewis.
> I'll post later on Margaret's family. I'm trying not to let swedes boil dry at present.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to
> > track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
> > married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
> > who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
> > you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
> > Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
> > Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
> > have any more information?
> >
> > Oh, and welcome back.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John
> > Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
> > not predecease him.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> > > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> > > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> > > straight in my head.)
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Hi All
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol,
> > > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
> > because
> > > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
> > > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but
> > was
> > > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton
> > (Lady
> > > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and
> > not
> > > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
> > connections,
> > > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
> > > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
> > > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
> > > eldest sister quite well.
> > > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
> > discovered
> > > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
> > > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
> > > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> > > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> > > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
> > > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
> > > like that phrase for some reason.)
> > >
> > > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> > > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> > > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> > > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
> > > you prefer).
> > >
> > > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> > > first name. Any theories?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, Marie -



Thanks for the info! If someone else recalls the message I'm thinking of,
maybe he/she can point it out.



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





Hi Johanne,

I don't know who ther other Vegil could have been - sounds fictional to me.
There is no real reason to believe that Polydore Vergil destroyed documents,
though. He had to be careful what he wrote, and was clearly well aware of
the political requirements of his task, but I wouldn't go further than that.
This article on the US website is good:-
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html

A lot of documents haven't survived, but that could be due to chance, or the
new regime not immediately valuing them, or fire, damp and rats, who knows.
Also, at the start of his reign Henry was referring to Richard as "Duke of
Gloucester"; it may have taken a bit of time before he realised Richard's
reign couldn't be whitewashed away.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, again, Marie-
>
>
>
> Since you have made a timely return, perhaps you can help me with a
question
> regarding something that came up here just after I returned and before you
> returned.
>
>
>
> Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed
documents
> that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone
> in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one
> of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
> documents.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I don't have the message to hand - can you elucidate the
> matter for us? Was it Polydore Vergil or another Vergil? Or perhaps both?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmO
HJsZXR1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTk3NDU4ODY-?o=6> New Members 6


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczNqNDVjB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTc0NTg4Ng--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdWo2aWI0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU5NzQ1ODg2>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=23280/stime=1359745886/nc1=5008817/nc2=3848614/nc3=4025291>

Johanne Tournier wrote:

[snip]
> Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]

Carol responds:

Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.

Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.

Carol

Hi Carol,

It would be good if you could locate the relevant posts for me. I don't promise to be able to translate Vergil's Latin but I'll certainly take a look.
As I've said, I don't imagine More deliberately lied about Lady Lucy's first name - I can't see what the point would have been. It was about 1600, I think, before Mistress Shore was reinvented as 'Jane', by which time there would definitely have been nobody around who remembered her real name. Anyway, dramatists often change first names even when they know them in order to avoid having multiple characters with the same name - the BBC radio semi-dramatisation of the Pastons' story based on Helen Castor's 'Blood and Roses', for instance, renamed Marjory Brewes as Joan. It wouldn't have worked well for the audience to have Edward IV hopping from one Elizabeth's bed to another.
It really is a good illustration, though, of the importance of getting the story out of the real original sources.
But, yeah, if you could find those posts it would be great.
Marie

>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. Thanks for answering my question about Sir Thomas More. If you have a chance to read our thread, which relates to Eleanor Butler rather than Lady Lucy, you'll find that Karen quoted Vergil's wording (and in a later post brought in the context relating to Warwick, which threw a new light on the discussion). She also quoted the original Latin, which neither of us has the skill to translate. If you don't have time to look up those posts, I can locate them for you. That way, you could see what we were actually discussing and put in your two cents. (It would be best to read the whole thread, which I'm afraid got a bit heated before we understood each other's positions. We've pretty much reached a stalemate. Whether the points we presented would apply to Lady Lucy, I don't know. Neither of us was aware that she was a candidate for Vergil's wronged lady.
>
> BTW, I wonder if More deliberately conflated Margaret Lucy with Elizabeth Lambert (whom he calls "Mistress Shore"). I wouldn't put it past him.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

Marie..let those poor Swedes go immediately..you will get into terrible trouble and what have they ever done to you? Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
>
> . I'm trying not to let swedes boil dry at present.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to
> > track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
> > married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
> > who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
> > you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
> > Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
> > Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
> > have any more information?
> >
> > Oh, and welcome back.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John
> > Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
> > not predecease him.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> > > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> > > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> > > straight in my head.)
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Hi All
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol,
> > > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
> > because
> > > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was not
> > > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him, but
> > was
> > > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton
> > (Lady
> > > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret and
> > not
> > > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
> > connections,
> > > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to Edward's
> > > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of Salisbury),
> > > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward IV's
> > > eldest sister quite well.
> > > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
> > discovered
> > > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress - ie a
> > > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she gave
> > > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed after
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> > > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> > > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either way,
> > > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act." (I
> > > like that phrase for some reason.)
> > >
> > > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> > > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> > > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> > > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot, if
> > > you prefer).
> > >
> > > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> > > first name. Any theories?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
>
> Carol
>

Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
Marie

<snip>
>2) Sir Lewis John as his second wife - his children were surnamed FitzLewis;
<snip>
>Margaret was traditionally thought to have been a daughter of the first
>marriage, so you may find her on the internet somewhere as Margaret
>Hankeford or Hankford. Hicks has established, from the Salisbury Roll,
>that she was in fact a daughter of Lewis John; I'm sure he is right -
>the sibling she was particularly close to was John FitzLewis.

Hi Marie

Was this the Lewis John who was the grandfather? of Mary FitzLewis 2nd
wife of Antony Woodville? If so Margaret would've been Mary's aunt??

cheers

Jac

>[email protected], mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>
>>
>> There were two completely separate Sir William Lucys:-
>> 1) Of Charlcote, Warwickshire, died 1466. Married first Elizabeth
>>Percy, who predeceased him, then one Agnes, his widow.
>> 2) Of Dallington, Northamptonshire (d. 1460). Left widow Margaret FitzLewis.
>> I'll post later on Margaret's family. I'm trying not to let swedes
>>boil dry at present.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>> >
>> > Marie
>> >
>> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was
>> >trying to
>> > track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
>> > married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
>> > who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
>> > you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
>> > Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
>> > Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
>> > have any more information?
>> >
>> > Oh, and welcome back.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: mariewalsh2003
>> > Reply-To:
>> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Hi All
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget,
>> >killed by John
>> > Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
>> > not predecease him.
>> > Marie
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > , Karen Clark wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Marie
>> > >
>> > > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
>> > > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
>> > > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
>> > > straight in my head.)
>> > >
>> > > Karen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: justcarol67
>> > > Reply-To:
>> > > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
>> > > To:
>> > > Subject: Re: Hi All
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Marie wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Carol,
>> > > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
>> > because
>> > > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that
>> > >she was not
>> > > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who
>> > >followed him, but
>> > was
>> > > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by
>> > >Northampton
>> > (Lady
>> > > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called
>> > >Margaret and
>> > not
>> > > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
>> > connections,
>> > > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible
>> > >widows to Edward's
>> > > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess
>> > >of Salisbury),
>> > > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also
>> > >knew Edward IV's
>> > > eldest sister quite well.
>> > > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
>> > discovered
>> > > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal
>> > >mistress - ie a
>> > > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early
>> > >1460s she gave
>> > > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once
>> > >removed after
>> > > all.
>> > >
>> > > Carol responds:
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
>> > > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as
>> > >far from
>> > > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer.
>> > >Either way,
>> > > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an
>> > >"unhonest act." (I
>> > > like that phrase for some reason.)
>> > >
>> > > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady
>> > >Lucy, but I'm
>> > > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's
>> > >vague rumor.
>> > > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
>> > > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or
>> > >Talbot, if
>> > > you prefer).
>> > >
>> > > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
>> > > first name. Any theories?
>> > >
>> > > Carol

That's exactly the individual Paul fingered last week.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
>
> Carol
>

Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
Marie

I can find no connection between either Lucy family and a mistress of Edward IV. She was probably a daughter of a Waite of Southampton, but the Lucy connection is simply not know.

My data has:

William Lucy of Dallington (killed 1460)

m1: Margaret Neville of Sutton

m2: Elizabeth Percy, widow of Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough

m3: Margaret FitzLewis (she m2: John Wake)


There is no mention of children by any of the marriages, and William's estates descended to the children of his two sisters. Margaret had a son John by her second husband.


I have William Lucy of Charlecote married to Eleanor Grey of Ruthyn. 

Will check my sources.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42573&strquery=cublington#s2


http://www.girders.net/Lu/Lucy,%20Sir%20William,%20(k.b.1460).doc

http://histfam.familysearch.org/getperson.php?
personID=I6030&tree=EuropeRoyalNobleHous


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA2-PA66&lpg=RA2-PA66&dq=william+lucy+of+dallington&source=bl&ots=kumLNWIO89&sig=zUb-7ghM_DFg5lrG3GtxuFQ2QX0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0isMUYXBLYyYhQfBwIDoBw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=william%20lucy%20of%20dallington&f=false


http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.medieval/2008-05/msg00347.html


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qf4GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=william+lucy+of+charlecote&source=bl&ots=3q21H_LkAD&sig=AE26ULOwiG2H8w9GmRBcoYiFo6I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jS8MUamLPMmShgf3p4CIBA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=william%20lucy%20of%20charlecote&f=false





________________________________
From: jacqui <jacqui@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:30
Subject: Re: Re: Hi All


 

>2) Sir Lewis John as his second wife - his children were surnamed FitzLewis;

>Margaret was traditionally thought to have been a daughter of the first
>marriage, so you may find her on the internet somewhere as Margaret
>Hankeford or Hankford. Hicks has established, from the Salisbury Roll,
>that she was in fact a daughter of Lewis John; I'm sure he is right -
>the sibling she was particularly close to was John FitzLewis.

Hi Marie

Was this the Lewis John who was the grandfather? of Mary FitzLewis 2nd
wife of Antony Woodville? If so Margaret would've been Mary's aunt??

cheers

Jac

>[email protected], mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>
>>
>> There were two completely separate Sir William Lucys:-
>> 1) Of Charlcote, Warwickshire, died 1466. Married first Elizabeth
>>Percy, who predeceased him, then one Agnes, his widow.
>> 2) Of Dallington, Northamptonshire (d. 1460). Left widow Margaret FitzLewis.
>> I'll post later on Margaret's family. I'm trying not to let swedes
>>boil dry at present.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>> >
>> > Marie
>> >
>> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was
>> >trying to
>> > track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
>> > married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
>> > who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
>> > you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
>> > Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
>> > Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
>> > have any more information?
>> >
>> > Oh, and welcome back.
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: mariewalsh2003
>> > Reply-To:
>> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Hi All
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget,
>> >killed by John
>> > Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
>> > not predecease him.
>> > Marie
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > , Karen Clark wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Marie
>> > >
>> > > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
>> > > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
>> > > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
>> > > straight in my head.)
>> > >
>> > > Karen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: justcarol67
>> > > Reply-To:
>> > > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
>> > > To:
>> > > Subject: Re: Hi All
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Marie wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Carol,
>> > > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
>> > because
>> > > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that
>> > >she was not
>> > > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who
>> > >followed him, but
>> > was
>> > > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by
>> > >Northampton
>> > (Lady
>> > > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called
>> > >Margaret and
>> > not
>> > > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
>> > connections,
>> > > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible
>> > >widows to Edward's
>> > > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess
>> > >of Salisbury),
>> > > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also
>> > >knew Edward IV's
>> > > eldest sister quite well.
>> > > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
>> > discovered
>> > > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal
>> > >mistress - ie a
>> > > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early
>> > >1460s she gave
>> > > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once
>> > >removed after
>> > > all.
>> > >
>> > > Carol responds:
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
>> > > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as
>> > >far from
>> > > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer.
>> > >Either way,
>> > > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an
>> > >"unhonest act." (I
>> > > like that phrase for some reason.)
>> > >
>> > > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady
>> > >Lucy, but I'm
>> > > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's
>> > >vague rumor.
>> > > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
>> > > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or
>> > >Talbot, if
>> > > you prefer).
>> > >
>> > > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
>> > > first name. Any theories?
>> > >
>> > > Carol

Hi, Carol -

Ah, yes, thanks for explaining the details! I had just re-joined and scanned
your email very quickly. I didn't catch the reference to Dante's "Virgil"
(the Latin poet) at all.



So, yes, obviously we are talking about the possibility that Polydore Vergil
and/or Robert Morton (from Marie's post) intentionally destroyed historical
documents. I wish I knew off-hand where I had read that of Vergil!
(Unfortunately I've got a crazy couple of weeks coming up with a number of
papers to write, so I will have even less time than usual to devote to these
"fun" matters. (smile)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





Johanne Tournier wrote:

[snip]
> Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed
documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly
someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood
that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
documents. [snip]

Carol responds:

Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't
born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying
documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what
Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part,
just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some
important position under Tudor, burned documents.

Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard), who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you have any more information?

Carol responds:

I don't know about Margaret Fitzlewis but Anthony Woodville's second wife was Mary FitzLewis (spelled with or without a hyphen). Her father's name was Henry and her mother was a Beaufort. Whether there's any connection between her and Margaret, i don't know. it can't be that common a name.

Carol

Marie wrote:
> Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
> I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.

Carol responds:

I just did a bit of checking. It was Audrey Williamson who suggests in The Mystery of the Princes that Robert Morton, who became Master of the Rolls in the Tower under Henry VII, may have destroyed some of the missing documents or at least was in a position to do so (pp. 70-71). She notes that his uncle held the same position before him and notes as especially significant the absence of official records for the council meeting that ended in the execution of Hastings. Whether anyone has followed up on this argument, I don't know. I do think it's an intriguing possibility, but it's certainly not a proven fact.

Carol

Seeing the name Robert Morton does anyone here know whether Robert Morton the composer was the brother of the illustrious Cardinal? He can't have been the mediocre nephew because he worked in Bruges from the 1470s.  The odd music history site has him as the brother but with some uncertainty.  Seeing 'Robert' as a  family name (not that common then) does make me wonder if they are right.  Has anyone any further info?   Hilary


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:08
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

 



--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
>
> Carol
>

Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
Marie

Hi Johanne,

Did you read the US website article I provided the link to (if it worked)? It was Caius who first accused Vergil of destroying documents, long after the event. Nobody minded what he said about Richard III, but claiming that Cambridge University was older than Oxford, or that there was no evidence for the existence of King Arthur = well, those things didn't make him popular.

Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Ah, yes, thanks for explaining the details! I had just re-joined and scanned
> your email very quickly. I didn't catch the reference to Dante's "Virgil"
> (the Latin poet) at all.
>
>
>
> So, yes, obviously we are talking about the possibility that Polydore Vergil
> and/or Robert Morton (from Marie's post) intentionally destroyed historical
> documents. I wish I knew off-hand where I had read that of Vergil!
> (Unfortunately I've got a crazy couple of weeks coming up with a number of
> papers to write, so I will have even less time than usual to devote to these
> "fun" matters. (smile)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:00 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed
> documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly
> someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood
> that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
> documents. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't
> born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying
> documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what
> Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part,
> just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some
> important position under Tudor, burned documents.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard), who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you have any more information?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about Margaret Fitzlewis but Anthony Woodville's second wife was Mary FitzLewis (spelled with or without a hyphen). Her father's name was Henry and her mother was a Beaufort. Whether there's any connection between her and Margaret, i don't know. it can't be that common a name.
>
> Carol
>


Yep, Carol, it was the same family, but please don't ask me for the exact relationship at this time of night.
Marie

Didn't the Master of the Rolls look after the Chancery Rolls? We have absolutely loads of chancery docs for Richard's reign, so that's a bit unfair. And we're also rather short on council minutes for the surrounding reigns.
Marie



--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
> > I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I just did a bit of checking. It was Audrey Williamson who suggests in The Mystery of the Princes that Robert Morton, who became Master of the Rolls in the Tower under Henry VII, may have destroyed some of the missing documents or at least was in a position to do so (pp. 70-71). She notes that his uncle held the same position before him and notes as especially significant the absence of official records for the council meeting that ended in the execution of Hastings. Whether anyone has followed up on this argument, I don't know. I do think it's an intriguing possibility, but it's certainly not a proven fact.
>
> Carol
>

I don't know. I have read the suggestion that he was the nephew himself, as Robert Morton the composer's career in Bruges stopped about the time that Bishop John Morton's nephew began his career in England. Find it hard to credit, myself. A gifted composer comes home, never writes any more music so far as we can tell, and becomes a second-rate administrator and later on a second-rate bishop. Is it not more likely that the composer, whoever he was, just died or retired of old age in the 1470s?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Seeing the name Robert Morton does anyone here know whether Robert Morton the composer was the brother of the illustrious Cardinal? He can't have been the mediocre nephew because he worked in Bruges from the 1470s.  The odd music history site has him as the brother but with some uncertainty.  Seeing 'Robert' as a  family name (not that common then) does make me wonder if they are right.  Has anyone any further info?   Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:08
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.
> >
> > Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
> I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Marie -
Nope, sorry - I've only seen one link today posted to the US RIII site, but I didn't have a chance to follow it.
While you were boiling Swedes I was trying to make sure my casserole didn't burn. Such is life!
Johanne

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

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 1 Feb 2013 23:44:46 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

Hi Johanne,

Did you read the US website article I provided the link to (if it worked)? It was Caius who first accused Vergil of destroying documents, long after the event. Nobody minded what he said about Richard III, but claiming that Cambridge University was older than Oxford, or that there was no evidence for the existence of King Arthur = well, those things didn't make him popular.

Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Ah, yes, thanks for explaining the details! I had just re-joined and scanned
> your email very quickly. I didn't catch the reference to Dante's "Virgil"
> (the Latin poet) at all.
>
>
>
> So, yes, obviously we are talking about the possibility that Polydore Vergil
> and/or Robert Morton (from Marie's post) intentionally destroyed historical
> documents. I wish I knew off-hand where I had read that of Vergil!
> (Unfortunately I've got a crazy couple of weeks coming up with a number of
> papers to write, so I will have even less time than usual to devote to these
> "fun" matters. (smile)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:00 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed
> documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly
> someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood
> that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed
> documents. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't
> born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying
> documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what
> Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part,
> just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some
> important position under Tudor, burned documents.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:

> Did you read the US website article I provided the link to (if it worked)? It was Caius who first accused Vergil of destroying documents, long after the event. Nobody minded what he said about Richard III, but claiming that Cambridge University was older than Oxford, or that there was no evidence for the existence of King Arthur = well, those things didn't make him popular.

Carol responds:

Even if Polydore Vergil didn't destroy documents, he himself complained of a dearth of documents for the years we're most interested in, so it appears that *someone* destroyed documents for Richard's and perhaps the two Edwards' reigns. After defending Vergil from charges of burning documents, leveled against him for reasons unrelated to Richard III (which would not preclude his also burning fifteenth-century records if he did burn the others), the author then says:

"The general attitude [that Vergil's] book on Richard III shows toward its subject, is likely a product of a lack of written sources, coupled with probably biased oral sources (Morton and Christopher Urswick) and the general Italian humanist conventions of history writing. These had a way of making use of history, by colouring it with moralistic teaching: providing examples to be followed or avoided. Richard made a classic character not-to-be-emulated, which also accounts partly for his `popularity' as a stage character."

So even if Polydore himself had no animus against Richard (he knew nothing about other than what he had been told and the few documents available to him), his sources did (and they included Henry VII himself for the years 1483-85).

Essentially, the author is right that we shouldn't dismiss Polydore Vergil as a political hack like, say, Bernard Andre, but his book contains so much rumor and speculation and so many errors and distortions (not to mention the humanist moralizing and imaginary dialogues) that it's dangerous indeed to take him on faith as a reliable source (as Tudor historians have done for centuries.

Just my opinion, but, as I said in the Eleanor Butler thread, I am leery of Polydore Vergil as a source for anything related to the Yorkist-Lancastrian era.

Carol

Marie

Edward V is in my list. Thanks. I'll check this out.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:55:20 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hi All







Okay, Anne Montagu, daughter of John, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, married three
times:-
1) Sir Richard Hankeford;
2) Sir Lewis John as his second wife - his children were surnamed FitzLewis;
3) John Holland, Duke of Exeter, as his third wife.
She outlived Exeter by about a decade and was at loggerheads with her
stepson, Duke Henry, about the inheritance, particularly some jewels.

Margaret was traditionally thought to have been a daughter of the first
marriage, so you may find her on the internet somewhere as Margaret
Hankeford or Hankford. Hicks has established, from the Salisbury Roll, that
she was in fact a daughter of Lewis John; I'm sure he is right - the sibling
she was particularly close to was John FitzLewis.
If you want more information I would recommend you get hold of a copy of
Hicks' 'Edward V' - he has done the real research and sets it out in his
book; I just had the germ of an idea.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> There were two completely separate Sir William Lucys:-
> 1) Of Charlcote, Warwickshire, died 1466. Married first Elizabeth Percy, who
predeceased him, then one Agnes, his widow.
> 2) Of Dallington, Northamptonshire (d. 1460). Left widow Margaret FitzLewis.
> I'll post later on Margaret's family. I'm trying not to let swedes boil dry at
present.
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Thanks. That was Whethamstede's Register. I know the story and was trying to
> > track his widow down some time ago, without success. The Peerage has him
> > married to Elizabeth Percy (not Margaret, that was a slip of the keyboard),
> > who died in 1455, but there's no mention of a marriage to Margaret. (Mind
> > you, the Pperage conflates Elizabeth Waite, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth
> > Shore, so there's no telling what else is confused.) You said Margaret
> > Fitzlewis in your reply to Carol and I can't track her down either! Do you
> > have any more information?
> >
> > Oh, and welcome back.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:57:06 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He was indeed. He was, according to which chronicle I forget, killed by John
> > Stafford "because he loved that knight's wife and hated him." Margaret did
> > not predecease him.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > , Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > I'm trying to work out who Margaret Lucy was. Was her husband the William
> > > Lucy who was killed at the battle of Northampton? (He was married to a
> > > Margaret, but she predeceased him. I think. I'm just trying to get it
> > > straight in my head.)
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:52:54 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Hi All
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol,
> > > > I think Vergil may have been referring to Lady Lucy. As you may know,
> > because
> > > I've posted about it a few times on this forum, my belief is that she was
not
> > > called Elizabeth as claimed by More and later writers who followed him,
but
> > was
> > > Margaret, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington by Northampton
> > (Lady
> > > Lucy's daughter by Edward IV, Lady Lumley, was actually called Margaret
and
> > not
> > > Elizabeth as claimed in late Tudor sources). She had all the right
> > connections,
> > > plus the usual dower problems that seemed to bring eligible widows to
Edward's
> > > attention; her mother was a Montagu (an aunt of Alice, Countess of
Salisbury),
> > > and the Duke of Exeter was a stepbrother so she probably also knew Edward
IV's
> > > eldest sister quite well.
> > > > Michael Hicks has expanded on this theory in his 'Edward V' and has
> > discovered
> > > that she was certainly the right personality type for a royal mistress -
ie a
> > > bit of a chequered sexual history - and that during the early 1460s she
gave
> > > Warwick as her address - the Kingmaker was her first cousin once removed
after
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie. That's interesting. Of course, Vergil makes it sound as if
> > > Edward deflowered a virgin in Warwick's house, so Lady Lucy is as far from
> > > his version as Eleanor Butler--or as close to it, if you prefer. Either
way,
> > > he has his "facts" jumbled and we're simply left with an "unhonest act."
(I
> > > like that phrase for some reason.)
> > >
> > > I suspect that Hicks is right regarding the identity of Lady Lucy, but I'm
> > > not convinced that she was the person referred to in Vergil's vague rumor.
> > > He could certainly have revealed her name if he knew it without needing a
> > > cover up as he would if the rumor referred to Eleanor Butler (or Talbot,
if
> > > you prefer).
> > >
> > > I do wonder, though, why *More* would call a known mistress by the wrong
> > > first name. Any theories?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks Marie for the link to the Society bit on Polydore Vergil. Until this
recent conversation I had bought into the Ricardian idea that he burned
"wagonloads" of documents. Upon reading about him further it does seem
unlikely and he truly aggravated some w/ his "foreign" take on British
history that upset some long time held beliefs, ie Arthur, etc. I was
coming to respect him more and then that article made a very good argument
he has been unfairly accused by Ricardians.

It's understandable many documents are missing from that era, but I think
the idea that Henry ordered all copies of Titulus Regis destroyed feeds into
the idea the Tudor
era flunkies deliberately destroyed volumes of documents. Where was the one
surviving copy found, I know I've read that but forgotten.

It seems particularly suspect that Ed IV's will naming Richard as Protector
has disappeared, go figure. Of course all this would prolly predate the
appearance of Vergil on the scene.

As to the below comment...do you find that the council minutes for early
Henry VII are missing as much as the council minutes for Ed IV, Ed V and
Richard III?

Good to see you back here.
T

Didn't the Master of the Rolls look after the Chancery Rolls? We have
absolutely loads of chancery docs for Richard's reign, so that's a bit
unfair. And we're also rather short on council minutes for the surrounding
reigns.
Marie

Now I have the vision of this frustrated musician burning papers to get his own back! No, I'm with you, whoever he was I don't think he was the nephew, probably too old anyway. Thanks. (But, I suppose to have a nephew, our John must have had a brother)



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 0:16
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

 

I don't know. I have read the suggestion that he was the nephew himself, as Robert Morton the composer's career in Bruges stopped about the time that Bishop John Morton's nephew began his career in England. Find it hard to credit, myself. A gifted composer comes home, never writes any more music so far as we can tell, and becomes a second-rate administrator and later on a second-rate bishop. Is it not more likely that the composer, whoever he was, just died or retired of old age in the 1470s?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Seeing the name Robert Morton does anyone here know whether Robert Morton the composer was the brother of the illustrious Cardinal? He can't have been the mediocre nephew because he worked in Bruges from the 1470s.  The odd music history site has him as the brother but with some uncertainty.  Seeing 'Robert' as a  family name (not that common then) does make me wonder if they are right.  Has anyone any further info?   Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013, 20:08
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Someone wrote that it was not Polydore Vergil who burned/destroyed documents that he didn't approve of, but someone else named Vergil -possibly someone in Morton's household, I think was said. I have always understood that one of Polydore Vergil's less salutary habits was that he had destroyed documents. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Actually, I said that the Vergil in Dante wasn't Polydore Vergil (who wasn't born yet) and that Archbishop Morton's nephew was accused of destroying documents (as was Vergil himself). But, yes, I'd very much like to hear what Marie knows about the matter. (Not the "someone else named Vergil" part, just her views on whether either Vergil or the younger Morton, who held some important position under Tudor, burned documents.
> >
> > Thanks for resurrecting the topic, which till now has gone unanswered.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> Ah, would the nephew in question be Robert Morton, John Morton's mediocre protege?
> I don't think there's any evidence of any individual destroying any particular documents although I'm quite sure that documents did get destroyed or discarded.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Marie & Carol -



Thanks, Marie, for providing the link; it was interesting to read more about
Polydore than I had been previously aware of. But, Carol, you saved me some
time in responding - You took the words right off my keyboard, to coin a
phrase. Thanks for your thoughts.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





Marie wrote:

> Did you read the US website article I provided the link to (if it worked)?
It was Caius who first accused Vergil of destroying documents, long after
the event. Nobody minded what he said about Richard III, but claiming that
Cambridge University was older than Oxford, or that there was no evidence
for the existence of King Arthur = well, those things didn't make him
popular.

Carol responds:

Even if Polydore Vergil didn't destroy documents, he himself complained of a
dearth of documents for the years we're most interested in, so it appears
that *someone* destroyed documents for Richard's and perhaps the two
Edwards' reigns. After defending Vergil from charges of burning documents,
leveled against him for reasons unrelated to Richard III (which would not
preclude his also burning fifteenth-century records if he did burn the
others), the author then says:

"The general attitude [that Vergil's] book on Richard III shows toward its
subject, is likely a product of a lack of written sources, coupled with
probably biased oral sources (Morton and Christopher Urswick) and the
general Italian humanist conventions of history writing. These had a way of
making use of history, by colouring it with moralistic teaching: providing
examples to be followed or avoided. Richard made a classic character
not-to-be-emulated, which also accounts partly for his `popularity' as a
stage character."

So even if Polydore himself had no animus against Richard (he knew nothing
about other than what he had been told and the few documents available to
him), his sources did (and they included Henry VII himself for the years
1483-85).

Essentially, the author is right that we shouldn't dismiss Polydore Vergil
as a political hack like, say, Bernard Andre, but his book contains so much
rumor and speculation and so many errors and distortions (not to mention the
humanist moralizing and imaginary dialogues) that it's dangerous indeed to
take him on faith as a reliable source (as Tudor historians have done for
centuries.

Just my opinion, but, as I said in the Eleanor Butler thread, I am leery of
Polydore Vergil as a source for anything related to the Yorkist-Lancastrian
era.

Carol

We have some intriguing council minutes for the first year of Henry's reign, but not for Richard's. Then it stops again. I did know the details once but I'm afraid my memory on this is rusty. If I can easily find the details I shall post them.
Marie

--- In , "Terry Buckaloo" wrote:
>
> Thanks Marie for the link to the Society bit on Polydore Vergil. Until this
> recent conversation I had bought into the Ricardian idea that he burned
> "wagonloads" of documents. Upon reading about him further it does seem
> unlikely and he truly aggravated some w/ his "foreign" take on British
> history that upset some long time held beliefs, ie Arthur, etc. I was
> coming to respect him more and then that article made a very good argument
> he has been unfairly accused by Ricardians.
>
> It's understandable many documents are missing from that era, but I think
> the idea that Henry ordered all copies of Titulus Regis destroyed feeds into
> the idea the Tudor
> era flunkies deliberately destroyed volumes of documents. Where was the one
> surviving copy found, I know I've read that but forgotten.
>
> It seems particularly suspect that Ed IV's will naming Richard as Protector
> has disappeared, go figure. Of course all this would prolly predate the
> appearance of Vergil on the scene.
>
> As to the below comment...do you find that the council minutes for early
> Henry VII are missing as much as the council minutes for Ed IV, Ed V and
> Richard III?
>
> Good to see you back here.
> T
>
> Didn't the Master of the Rolls look after the Chancery Rolls? We have
> absolutely loads of chancery docs for Richard's reign, so that's a bit
> unfair. And we're also rather short on council minutes for the surrounding
> reigns.
> Marie
>
>
>
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Thanks, Marie, for providing the link; it was interesting to read more about Polydore than I had been previously aware of. But, Carol, you saved me some time in responding - You took the words right off my keyboard, to coin a phrase. Thanks for your thoughts.

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I'm very glad that you agree with me. I think it would be unwise to swing from rejecting Polydore altogether, as many Ricardians do, to accepting him unreservedly because he probably didn't burn documents. (Neither did Rous, but we take him with a grain of salt.) Like all the historians, chroniclers, and even poets who wrote about Richard (or any medieval king), he has to be understood in the context of when and for whom he was writing, the sources available to him, and the biases and predilections of those sources, not to mention the conventions of humanist historians in his case and More's. The author did make a statement to that effect, but she might have given it more emphasis.

Carol

Hi, Carol -



I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
of destruction of documents. I also appreciate Marie's posting the link, of
course. It is particularly helpful, I think, to find out that Vergil was
not, as you put it, a paid hack for Henry VII. Thus, it seems unlikely that
he would have had an agenda. On destruction of documents, I guess the
suspects would depend on who had "motive and opportunity," as they always
say about murder suspects. If, for instance, the records of the particular
Council meeting at which Hastings was condemned are mysteriously missing -
well, depending, I suppose it might have been someone acting at Richard's
behest, depending on what they would have disclosed. The same thing for
Edward's missing will. If Richard Gloucester was appointed sole Protector,
presumably he would have had no reason to do away with it. But suppose it
named, say, Earl Rivers and EW? Then if Richard were minded to stage a coup
and could get the Council behind him, perhaps the burning of the Will would
have been advisable in the circumstances. I do find it very strange that
there are no copies of EIV's will anywhere, which does suggest to me that
someone did away with them. Of course, I think it's unlikely that all this
was done at Richard's direction. But - what reason would his successors and
opponents have had to destroy such records after the fact? Does it have
something to do with the fact, as someone here mentioned recently, that
initially H7 was trying to pretend that Richard had never been anointed and
crowned king?



My belief is that, no matter what the degree of my regard, affection and
respect for Our King, we have a responsibility to investigate and examine
carefully every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late
15th. c. where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Thanks, Marie, for providing the link; it was interesting to read more
about Polydore than I had been previously aware of. But, Carol, you saved me
some time in responding - You took the words right off my keyboard, to coin
a phrase. Thanks for your thoughts.

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I'm very glad that you agree with me. I think it would be
unwise to swing from rejecting Polydore altogether, as many Ricardians do,
to accepting him unreservedly because he probably didn't burn documents.
(Neither did Rous, but we take him with a grain of salt.) Like all the
historians, chroniclers, and even poets who wrote about Richard (or any
medieval king), he has to be understood in the context of when and for whom
he was writing, the sources available to him, and the biases and
predilections of those sources, not to mention the conventions of humanist
historians in his case and More's. The author did make a statement to that
effect, but she might have given it more emphasis.

Carol

Carol,
>
> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question of destruction of documents.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:

"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." I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I posted my response.

Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)

Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.

I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c. where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.

Carol

OK, whatever.



Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
to get that clarified.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)





Carol,
>
> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
of destruction of documents.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:

"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."
I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
posted my response.

Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)

Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.

I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.

Carol

We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.

On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



OK, whatever.

Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
to get that clarified.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

Carol,
>
> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
of destruction of documents.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:

"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."
I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
posted my response.

Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)

Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.

I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.

Carol

Not only that...but after the passage of time...500 years in this case...documents also get accidentally destroyed..frequently by fire. The old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire, as what a massive part of London in the fire of 1666. Nearly all of Warwick was burnt to the ground in the 17th century....Then there was the Blitz...Its a miracle we have anything left really. Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
> >
> > I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela
There also was a relatively recent trend to turn old velum manuscripts into lampshades, I often wonder just how much family information has been turned into " trendy" lampshades! I remember being in a pub near Winchelsea and spending most of my serious drinking time reading lampshades!
One wonders if 500 years from now a ipad will be found.....
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Not to mention rodents, insects, water, and other such things.

On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Not only that...but after the passage of time...500 years in this case...documents also get accidentally destroyed..frequently by fire. The old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire, as what a massive part of London in the fire of 1666. Nearly all of Warwick was burnt to the ground in the 17th century....Then there was the Blitz...Its a miracle we have anything left really. Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
> >
> > I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Isn't that the truth. We (hubby and I) seem to be the repository for all the family bible, documents and photos. We have tried to label and categorize by family. But, we have a huge box of photos and have absolutely no idea who they are.
We are keepers, and I am trying to indoctrinate my grandchildren into the idea that keeping is GOOD, but when we are moldering away, I can imagine a huge garage sale or bonfire! I hope not.
And, think of how many of the succeeding generations of royals, not wanting to have things (history, genealogy, etc.) out in the open have locked them away, or just conveniently lost them!



On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:32 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Pamela
There also was a relatively recent trend to turn old velum manuscripts into lampshades, I often wonder just how much family information has been turned into " trendy" lampshades! I remember being in a pub near Winchelsea and spending most of my serious drinking time reading lampshades!
One wonders if 500 years from now a ipad will be found.....
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

There also was a relatively recent trend to turn old velum manuscripts into
lampshades, I often wonder just how much family information has been turned into
" trendy" lampshades! I remember being in a pub near Winchelsea and spending
most of my serious drinking time reading lampshades!
One wonders if 500 years from now a ipad will be found.....
George

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Not to mention rodents, insects, water, and other such things.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31 PM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Not only that...but after the passage of time...500 years in this case...documents also get accidentally destroyed..frequently by fire. The old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire, as what a massive part of London in the fire of 1666. Nearly all of Warwick was burnt to the ground in the 17th century....Then there was the Blitz...Its a miracle we have anything left really. Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, whatever.
> >
> > Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> > the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> > replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> > that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> > to get that clarified.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
> >
> > Carol,
> > >
> > > I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> > Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> > of destruction of documents.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
> >
> > "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."
> > I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> > posted my response.
> >
> > Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> > Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> > their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> > them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> > Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> > Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> > most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> > get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> > escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
> >
> > Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> > for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> > them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
> >
> > I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> > every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> > where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> > a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> > biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> > presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> > statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> > Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> > codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Snakes, wars, destructive puppies etc, de-clutterers.... :0)

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Not to mention rodents, insects, water, and other such things.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31 PM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Not only that...but after the passage of time...500 years in this case...documents also get accidentally destroyed..frequently by fire. The old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire, as what a massive part of London in the fire of 1666. Nearly all of Warwick was burnt to the ground in the 17th century....Then there was the Blitz...Its a miracle we have anything left really. Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, whatever.
> >
> > Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> > the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> > replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> > that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> > to get that clarified.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
> >
> > Carol,
> > >
> > > I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> > Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> > of destruction of documents.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
> >
> > "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."
> > I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> > posted my response.
> >
> > Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> > Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> > their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> > them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> > Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> > Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> > most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> > get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> > escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
> >
> > Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> > for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> > them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
> >
> > I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> > every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> > where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> > a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> > biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> > presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> > statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> > Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> > codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have loads of old photos (and negatives- am currently in the process of getting a negative scanner- who knows what gems I wil find.)  Fortunately my mum and I used to go through the boxes a lot and she told me who everyone was (more or less)  I am trying to do the same with my nieces so that when I go, they won't be left with a bunch of photos of anonymous people.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 20:43
Subject: Re: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

Isn't that the truth. We (hubby and I) seem to be the repository for all the family bible, documents and photos. We have tried to label and categorize by family. But, we have a huge box of photos and have absolutely no idea who they are.
We are keepers, and I am trying to indoctrinate my grandchildren into the idea that keeping is GOOD, but when we are moldering away, I can imagine a huge garage sale or bonfire! I hope not.
And, think of how many of the succeeding generations of royals, not wanting to have things (history, genealogy, etc.) out in the open have locked them away, or just conveniently lost them!



On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:32 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Pamela
There also was a relatively recent trend to turn old velum manuscripts into lampshades, I often wonder just how much family information has been turned into " trendy" lampshades! I remember being in a pub near Winchelsea and spending most of my serious drinking time reading lampshades!
One wonders if 500 years from now a ipad will be found.....
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>








------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
>Not to mention shredders......A notorious butler wrote in his memoirs that he came across Princess Diana's mother and sister in her apartment shredding stuff after her death...Eileen

> And, think of how many of the succeeding generations of royals, not wanting to have things (history, genealogy, etc.) out in the open have locked them away, or just conveniently lost them!
>
>
>
>
> >
> > OK, whatever.
> >
> > Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> > the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> > replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> > that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> > to get that clarified.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
> >
> > Carol,
> >>
> >> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> > Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> > of destruction of documents.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
> >
> > "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."
> > I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> > posted my response.
> >
> > Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> > Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> > their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> > them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> > Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> > Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> > most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> > get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> > escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
> >
> > Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> > for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> > them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
> >
> > I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> > every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> > where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> > a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> > biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> > presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> > statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> > Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> > codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wasn't it Churchill who said " history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:55 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >Not to mention shredders......A notorious butler wrote in his memoirs that he came across Princess Diana's mother and sister in her apartment shredding stuff after her death...Eileen
>
> > And, think of how many of the succeeding generations of royals, not wanting to have things (history, genealogy, etc.) out in the open have locked them away, or just conveniently lost them!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > OK, whatever.
> > >
> > > Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> > > the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> > > replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> > > that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> > > to get that clarified.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@...
> > >
> > > or jltournier@...
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > >>
> > >> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> > > Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> > > of destruction of documents.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > > I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> > > posted my response.
> > >
> > > Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> > > Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> > > their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> > > them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> > > Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> > > Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> > > most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> > > get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> > > escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
> > >
> > > Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> > > for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> > > them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
> > >
> > > I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> > > every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> > > where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> > > a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> > > biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> > > presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> > > statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> > > Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> > > codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I'm the one responsible for the original mention of Dante in relation to *Vergil* (note spelling please) and his perhaps being assigned one of the seven rings of Hell IF he had burned documents.

I didn't mention Dante's archetypal guide, *Virgil*, who in any case was never destined to reside in any ring of Hell since he was a reliable guide and not a deceiver who might have burned 15th-century documents pertaining to R3 and his reign.

I cited the real-life Vergil in my original post, but he somehow got confused with the archetypal guide Virgil.

Blame Dante.

Are we good now?

~Weds



--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> OK, whatever.
>
>
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne

Love that man!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Wasn't it Churchill who said " history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:55 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:

>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> >Not to mention shredders......A notorious butler wrote in his memoirs that he came across Princess Diana's mother and sister in her apartment shredding stuff after her death...Eileen
>
> > And, think of how many of the succeeding generations of royals, not wanting to have things (history, genealogy, etc.) out in the open have locked them away, or just conveniently lost them!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > OK, whatever.
> > >
> > > Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> > > the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> > > replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> > > that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> > > to get that clarified.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@...
> > >
> > > or jltournier@...
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > >>
> > >> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> > > Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> > > of destruction of documents.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > > I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> > > posted my response.
> > >
> > > Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> > > Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> > > their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> > > them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> > > Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> > > Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> > > most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> > > get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> > > escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
> > >
> > > Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> > > for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> > > them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
> > >
> > > I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> > > every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> > > where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> > > a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> > > biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> > > presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> > > statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> > > Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> > > codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi, George,

If Henry VIII had thought of this, he'd likely have done it.

Vellum/parchment is still being made and used by calligraphers. No ancient manuscript has to be destroyed if someone wants to make vellum into lampshades. There are also a number of art calligraphers worldwide who could supply the manuscripts.

When the ipad and electricity are gone a la "A Canticle for Leibowitz," vellum and parchment will still be able to be read. If any of it's left and anyone is around who can read it.

But then, I'm an eccentric who misses scriptoriums the same way I miss Richard.

~Weds

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Pamela
> There also was a relatively recent trend to turn old velum manuscripts into lampshades, I often wonder just how much family information has been turned into " trendy" lampshades! I remember being in a pub near Winchelsea and spending most of my serious drinking time reading lampshades!
> One wonders if 500 years from now a ipad will be found.....
> George

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> OK, whatever.

> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad to get that clarified.

Carol responds:

Okay, whatever? Now I'm confused. I was feeling happy that you agreed with me. Now I feel swept into a corner. But, yes, the Vergil of Dante was in the post I was replying to. I should probably have snipped that part. As far as I know, only Polydore Vergil and, much more recently, Robert Morton, have been accused of snipping documents. i thought that part was already cleared up.

Carol

And let us not forget the oral traditions.
Look at the politicians at our recent Levenson enquiry into Press ethics. So many on oath said "Oh I don't recall that" as a defence. Selective loss of memory about something you do not wish to remember, or edit out of your life, must also contribute to legend and can change history.
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!



On 2 Feb 2013, at 20:23, Pamela Bain wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Paul,
 
 
I remember a previous boss of mine having to give a legal depositon about something or other.  He was told by the company lawyers to say "I don't remember" or "I don't recall that" about certain issues.
 
 
Liz
 
 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 10:37
Subject: Re: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)

 
And let us not forget the oral traditions.
Look at the politicians at our recent Levenson enquiry into Press ethics. So many on oath said "Oh I don't recall that" as a defence. Selective loss of memory about something you do not wish to remember, or edit out of your life, must also contribute to legend and can change history.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

On 2 Feb 2013, at 20:23, Pamela Bain wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.commailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
>
> or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Old lawyer's trick. "I don't remember" is the one statement that can't be challenged, although opposing counsel will try like anything to do so.

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Paul,
>  
>  
> I remember a previous boss of mine having to give a legal depositon about something or other.  He was told by the company lawyers to say "I don't remember" or "I don't recall that" about certain issues.
>  
>  
> Liz

Oh yes, our famous Hilllary Clinton, "I do not recall"!

On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:37 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



And let us not forget the oral traditions.
Look at the politicians at our recent Levenson enquiry into Press ethics. So many on oath said "Oh I don't recall that" as a defence. Selective loss of memory about something you do not wish to remember, or edit out of your life, must also contribute to legend and can change history.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

On 2 Feb 2013, at 20:23, Pamela Bain wrote:

> We all know about recent times when documents magically disappeared, or were destroyed. You can imagine how many documents were destroyed on purpose, especially after the Tudors came to power.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Johanne Tournier" jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, whatever.
>
> Thanks for re-posting your message - as you can see, there is no mention of
> the Virgil of Dante. (It was probably in the earlier message you were
> replying to.) The result was that what I took away from your message was
> that there may have been two Vergils involved in destroying documents. Glad
> to get that clarified.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Speaking of Vergil (was RE: Hi All)
>
> Carol,
>>
>> I appreciate your commenting - but then you had brought up the question of
> Polydore yourself, so you must have been curious as well about the question
> of destruction of documents.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes and no. Here's what I said in my original post:
>
> "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."
> I had already read the article Marie linked you to but reread it before I
> posted my response.
>
> Regarding the destruction of the codicil to Edward's will naming Richard as
> Protector, if we ask ourselves cui bono, the answer is the Woodvilles or
> their adherents. That in itself doesn't prove that they did it, but it makes
> them the most likely suspects. However, a Tudor adherent (such as Robert
> Morton) could have destroyed it as well, not wanting it to be known that
> Richard's actions as Protector, such as "capturing" Edward V, were for the
> most lawful and in keeping with his duties as Protector. (I don't want to
> get back into the Hastings matter, but the arrest of Rivers et al. and
> escorting his nephew to London seem to me perfectly justifiable.)
>
> Which reminds me. I have some ideas regarding Elizabeth Woodville's reasons
> for scurrying into sanctuary, which are certainly not as Vergil presents
> them, but I'd be interested in other people's views before expressing mine.
>
> I agree that "we have a responsibility to investigate and examine carefully
> every single possibility. Especially in the case like the late 15th. c.
> where so much of the record is fragmentary and ambiguous." But we also have
> a responsibility to analyze our sources, in particular their drawbacks and
> biases, before drawing any conclusions as to the reliability of the details
> presented. fortunately, we have conflicting evidence for some of Vergil's
> statements (for example, his tonypandied version of the death of Edward of
> Lancaster). It's just a shame that so many documents, including wills and
> codicils, have been either lost or destroyed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>