Re; Mistresses?
Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 19:36:42
Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 20:21:35
Carol Darling wrote:
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
Carol (T) responds:
No one knows whether John and Katherine, his only acknowledged illegitimate children, had the same mother or not. (Katherine Haute has been suggested as the mother of his daughter, Katherine.) However, it seems clear that both children were born before his marriage (perhaps conceived while Anne was married to Edward of Lancaster, but that's speculation). Richard made John (still under twenty-one but we don't know his exact age) Captain of Calais while he was king. He could not have been more than eighteen unless Richard fathered children at a very young age and was probably younger since Richard seems to regard him as a boy. There's no suggestion that he was born in Calais though he may have been born in Pontefract (Pomfret). Katherine was old enough to marry (perhaps fourteen, maybe a bit older) in 1484. Neither could have been younger than ten when he became king in 1483 if they were conceived before his marriage in 1472 (and born before 1473). My own view is that they were about fourteen and sixteen, respectively, when he became king. Clearly, they were older than his legitimate son, Edward. IIRC, John was knighted when Edward was invested as Prince of Wales, a kind gesture on Richard's part so he wouldn't feel left out.
In any case, Richard's reputation for clean living suggests that he had no mistresses after his marriage. Certainly, he had none as king or his detractors would have used that against him. Since I don't think that Richard was a hypocrite, I am quite sure that he kept his marriage vows and disapproved (as his implied attitude toward Mistress Shore shows) of Edward's failure to do so.
Carol (T)
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
Carol (T) responds:
No one knows whether John and Katherine, his only acknowledged illegitimate children, had the same mother or not. (Katherine Haute has been suggested as the mother of his daughter, Katherine.) However, it seems clear that both children were born before his marriage (perhaps conceived while Anne was married to Edward of Lancaster, but that's speculation). Richard made John (still under twenty-one but we don't know his exact age) Captain of Calais while he was king. He could not have been more than eighteen unless Richard fathered children at a very young age and was probably younger since Richard seems to regard him as a boy. There's no suggestion that he was born in Calais though he may have been born in Pontefract (Pomfret). Katherine was old enough to marry (perhaps fourteen, maybe a bit older) in 1484. Neither could have been younger than ten when he became king in 1483 if they were conceived before his marriage in 1472 (and born before 1473). My own view is that they were about fourteen and sixteen, respectively, when he became king. Clearly, they were older than his legitimate son, Edward. IIRC, John was knighted when Edward was invested as Prince of Wales, a kind gesture on Richard's part so he wouldn't feel left out.
In any case, Richard's reputation for clean living suggests that he had no mistresses after his marriage. Certainly, he had none as king or his detractors would have used that against him. Since I don't think that Richard was a hypocrite, I am quite sure that he kept his marriage vows and disapproved (as his implied attitude toward Mistress Shore shows) of Edward's failure to do so.
Carol (T)
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 21:25:22
I don’t think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
celibacy is relatively modern.
George
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
verses Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31. According to Clement of
Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
the Church's chief librarian.[8]
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
sons, who all became priests.[9]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had two illegitimate children during his
licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
ambitions.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
orders
Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
pontificate
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponents of being the
illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was brother of Alberic
II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
Formosus.[26]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
1047–1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re; Mistresses?
Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
celibacy is relatively modern.
George
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
verses Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31. According to Clement of
Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
the Church's chief librarian.[8]
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
sons, who all became priests.[9]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had two illegitimate children during his
licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
ambitions.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
orders
Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
pontificate
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponents of being the
illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was brother of Alberic
II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
Formosus.[26]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
1047–1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re; Mistresses?
Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 21:38:55
Hi,
As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive in the early 1500s and they had children.
Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and then him.
Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue to dig.
H.
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> celibacy is relatively modern.
> George
>
> Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> verses Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31. According to Clement of
> Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> sons, who all became priests.[9]
> Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> ambitions.[14]
> Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> orders
> Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> pontificate
>
> Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> Formosus.[26]
> Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> Saeculum obscurum)
> Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> 1047–1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive in the early 1500s and they had children.
Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and then him.
Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue to dig.
H.
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> celibacy is relatively modern.
> George
>
> Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> verses Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31. According to Clement of
> Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> sons, who all became priests.[9]
> Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> ambitions.[14]
> Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> orders
> Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> pontificate
>
> Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> Formosus.[26]
> Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> Saeculum obscurum)
> Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> 1047–1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 22:25:42
"George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of celibacy is relatively modern.
Carol responds:
Those popes observed the letter of the canon law by avoiding marriage. It was the spirit of the law they were violating. If I recall correctly, Catholic priests in Ireland married if they chose until the Pope imposed celibacy on them. That would have been around the time of Saint Patrick, I think. At the same time, they were required to change their church calendar to make it conform with Roman Catholic practice and even the monks had to change their tonsure (their partially shaved heads) to match the Roman Catholic monks.
By Richard's time, celibacy had long been a requirement for clerics at any level, but it wasn't only the popes who violated their vows of chastity. I'm trying to remember the name of the priest who held up his naked baby son (by his mistress) to the congregation and praised the baby as a miracle of God. Does anyone recall that story?
In any case, one of Richard's first speeches requested (or commanded?) the English priests to set a better moral example for their congregations. I suspect that violations of this sort were high on his list.
Before anyone pounces on me for the next paragraph, I am writing from a historical perspective and not a religious one. My own religious views, if any, are irrelevant. I'm discussing celibacy as it relates to Catholicism. It's been a long time since I studied this topic, but if I make any errors, I'm sure that someone will point them out.
Anyway, George, you may be familiar with the passage in the Epistles where Paul tells his readers, "It is better to marry than to burn." Basically, he's telling them that if they must have sex, they should do it within the bonds of marriage. And, of course, there's the whole emphasis in the Gospels on Mary's virginity. I don't want to bring up a religious discussion, which would cause hurt feelings on all sides, much less contrast Paul's ideas with modern ones. I'm only trying to say that the association of celibacy/chastity with goodness and godliness goes back at least to the earliest Christian writings and probably earlier. I'm not sure when celibacy became a requirement for Roman (as opposed to Irish) Catholic priests, but it must have been quite early on. It was certainly the expectation, if not always the fact, in the fifteenth century.
Carol
Carol
>
> I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of celibacy is relatively modern.
Carol responds:
Those popes observed the letter of the canon law by avoiding marriage. It was the spirit of the law they were violating. If I recall correctly, Catholic priests in Ireland married if they chose until the Pope imposed celibacy on them. That would have been around the time of Saint Patrick, I think. At the same time, they were required to change their church calendar to make it conform with Roman Catholic practice and even the monks had to change their tonsure (their partially shaved heads) to match the Roman Catholic monks.
By Richard's time, celibacy had long been a requirement for clerics at any level, but it wasn't only the popes who violated their vows of chastity. I'm trying to remember the name of the priest who held up his naked baby son (by his mistress) to the congregation and praised the baby as a miracle of God. Does anyone recall that story?
In any case, one of Richard's first speeches requested (or commanded?) the English priests to set a better moral example for their congregations. I suspect that violations of this sort were high on his list.
Before anyone pounces on me for the next paragraph, I am writing from a historical perspective and not a religious one. My own religious views, if any, are irrelevant. I'm discussing celibacy as it relates to Catholicism. It's been a long time since I studied this topic, but if I make any errors, I'm sure that someone will point them out.
Anyway, George, you may be familiar with the passage in the Epistles where Paul tells his readers, "It is better to marry than to burn." Basically, he's telling them that if they must have sex, they should do it within the bonds of marriage. And, of course, there's the whole emphasis in the Gospels on Mary's virginity. I don't want to bring up a religious discussion, which would cause hurt feelings on all sides, much less contrast Paul's ideas with modern ones. I'm only trying to say that the association of celibacy/chastity with goodness and godliness goes back at least to the earliest Christian writings and probably earlier. I'm not sure when celibacy became a requirement for Roman (as opposed to Irish) Catholic priests, but it must have been quite early on. It was certainly the expectation, if not always the fact, in the fifteenth century.
Carol
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 22:51:17
Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive in the early 1500s and they had children.
>
> Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and then him.
>
> Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue to dig.
>
> H.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > George
> >
> > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > ambitions.[14]
> > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders
> > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > pontificate
> >
> > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > Formosus.[26]
> > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive in the early 1500s and they had children.
>
> Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and then him.
>
> Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue to dig.
>
> H.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > George
> >
> > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > ambitions.[14]
> > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders
> > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > pontificate
> >
> > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > Formosus.[26]
> > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-12 23:42:21
Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: ""
<>
Cc: ""
<>
Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
>Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
>made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
>speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
>in the early 1500s and they had children.
>
> Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
>made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
>from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
>Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
>then him.
>
> Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
>Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
>nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
>got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
>Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
>rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
>to dig.
>
> H.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > George
> >
> > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > ambitions.[14]
> > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders
> > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > pontificate
> >
> > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > Formosus.[26]
> > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: ""
<>
Cc: ""
<>
Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
>Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
>made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
>speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
>in the early 1500s and they had children.
>
> Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
>made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
>from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
>Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
>then him.
>
> Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
>Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
>nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
>got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
>Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
>rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
>to dig.
>
> H.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > George
> >
> > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > ambitions.[14]
> > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > orders
> > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > pontificate
> >
> > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > Formosus.[26]
> > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 00:34:59
Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...> wrote:
> Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ""
> >
> Cc: ""
> >
> Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> >
> > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> >then him.
> >
> > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> >to dig.
> >
> > H.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > George
> > >
> > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > ambitions.[14]
> > > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders
> > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > pontificate
> > >
> > > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > Formosus.[26]
> > > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...> wrote:
> Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ""
> >
> Cc: ""
> >
> Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> >
> > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> >then him.
> >
> > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> >to dig.
> >
> > H.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > George
> > >
> > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > ambitions.[14]
> > > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders
> > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > pontificate
> > >
> > > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > Formosus.[26]
> > > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 01:09:46
Alice's mistress status is entirely conjecture, so you can toss it out the window and cackle as it smashes into itsy-bitsy pieces if you like. <EG>
For that matter, the condition of Richard and Anne's marriage is also conjecture. ::goes and props up Faithful!Richard on the mantle::
But I think Anne's tolerance would go exactly as far as the depth of the trust she had in Richard. I also don't think Middleham was so large, Richard's having an affair with his son's nanny (or anyone else living within the curtain wall) wouldn't have been noticed and commented on by others.
~Weds
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
<snipped for brevity>
For that matter, the condition of Richard and Anne's marriage is also conjecture. ::goes and props up Faithful!Richard on the mantle::
But I think Anne's tolerance would go exactly as far as the depth of the trust she had in Richard. I also don't think Middleham was so large, Richard's having an affair with his son's nanny (or anyone else living within the curtain wall) wouldn't have been noticed and commented on by others.
~Weds
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
<snipped for brevity>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 04:05:54
Exactly - any female found receiving an annuity, and - bingo! - she's obviously the mother of one of his children. It is pretty clear that both John and Katherine were born before Richard married Anne, so it seems safe to assume that Richard did not continue his liasison(s) with their mother(s). Mancini specifically tells us that the purity of Richard's private life was well known.
Marie
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Alice's mistress status is entirely conjecture, so you can toss it out the window and cackle as it smashes into itsy-bitsy pieces if you like.
>
> For that matter, the condition of Richard and Anne's marriage is also conjecture. ::goes and props up Faithful!Richard on the mantle::
>
> But I think Anne's tolerance would go exactly as far as the depth of the trust she had in Richard. I also don't think Middleham was so large, Richard's having an affair with his son's nanny (or anyone else living within the curtain wall) wouldn't have been noticed and commented on by others.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Alice's mistress status is entirely conjecture, so you can toss it out the window and cackle as it smashes into itsy-bitsy pieces if you like.
>
> For that matter, the condition of Richard and Anne's marriage is also conjecture. ::goes and props up Faithful!Richard on the mantle::
>
> But I think Anne's tolerance would go exactly as far as the depth of the trust she had in Richard. I also don't think Middleham was so large, Richard's having an affair with his son's nanny (or anyone else living within the curtain wall) wouldn't have been noticed and commented on by others.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 05:05:14
Marie wrote:
>
> Exactly - any female found receiving an annuity, and - bingo! - she's obviously the mother of one of his children. It is pretty clear that both John and Katherine were born before Richard married Anne, so it seems safe to assume that Richard did not continue his liasison(s) with their mother(s). Mancini specifically tells us that the purity of Richard's private life was well known.
Carol responds:
I'd say "exactly," except that you've already said it. The identity of Richard's mistress or mistresses, whom he clearly set aside after his marriage, is pure conjecture.
Speaking of conjecture, I just read in an article (I think it was the one about a possible design for Richard's memorial) which stated as fact that "Richard Plantagenet" (Richard of Eastwell) was Richard's illegitimate son. That's not a fact. It's a conjecture. The whole point of the exhumation would be to determine whether he shared Richard's Y chromosome, which would still only show that he was probably a Plantagenet but not that he was Richard's son. Richard acknowledged two illegitimate children. Why would he treat this one any differently? And yet the article identifies him without qualification as Richard's illegitimate son.
This article is, of course, only one example among many of rumor and conjecture repeated in news articles as if they were facts. If only facts weren't so hard to come by. I suppose I should be grateful that the author didn't name one of the alleged mistresses as Richard of Eastwell's mother.
Carol
>
> Exactly - any female found receiving an annuity, and - bingo! - she's obviously the mother of one of his children. It is pretty clear that both John and Katherine were born before Richard married Anne, so it seems safe to assume that Richard did not continue his liasison(s) with their mother(s). Mancini specifically tells us that the purity of Richard's private life was well known.
Carol responds:
I'd say "exactly," except that you've already said it. The identity of Richard's mistress or mistresses, whom he clearly set aside after his marriage, is pure conjecture.
Speaking of conjecture, I just read in an article (I think it was the one about a possible design for Richard's memorial) which stated as fact that "Richard Plantagenet" (Richard of Eastwell) was Richard's illegitimate son. That's not a fact. It's a conjecture. The whole point of the exhumation would be to determine whether he shared Richard's Y chromosome, which would still only show that he was probably a Plantagenet but not that he was Richard's son. Richard acknowledged two illegitimate children. Why would he treat this one any differently? And yet the article identifies him without qualification as Richard's illegitimate son.
This article is, of course, only one example among many of rumor and conjecture repeated in news articles as if they were facts. If only facts weren't so hard to come by. I suppose I should be grateful that the author didn't name one of the alleged mistresses as Richard of Eastwell's mother.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 09:16:51
I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death. H
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> >
> > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> >then him.
> >
> > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> >to dig.
> >
> > H.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > George
> > >
> > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > ambitions.[14]
> > > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders
> > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > pontificate
> > >
> > > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > Formosus.[26]
> > > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> >
> > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> >then him.
> >
> > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> >to dig.
> >
> > H.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > George
> > >
> > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > verses Matthew 8:1415, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:2931. According to Clement of
> > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > Pope Adrian II (867872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > Pope Clement IV (12651268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > Pope Pius II (14581464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > Pope Innocent VIII (14841492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > ambitions.[14]
> > > Pope Clement VII (15231534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > Pope Gregory XIII (15721585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > orders
> > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > pontificate
> > >
> > > Pope Sergius III (904911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > Formosus.[26]
> > > Pope John X (914928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope John XII (955963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > Pope Benedict IX (1032 became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > 10471048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > Pope Alexander VI (14921503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > Pomfret&.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 09:54:31
As I said to Ishita, someone asked who they could be and I put forward the candidates so far identified. I have no idea whether they were or not, but I bow to Horrox's suggestion. Wilkinson does make a quite convincing case for Alice Burgh re the Pontefract connection and she quite rightly points out that we don't know whether he had any liaisons after his marriage. Somtimes the most righteous can have hidden tendencies - think Gladstone. AND I'm not saying that I think Richard, or Clarence for that matter, did. H. (I left out Richard of Eastwell as being one step too far)
I think the post should probably have been labelled 'lovers', not 'mistresses' as mistress implies a liaison after marriage.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 5:05
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Marie wrote:
>
> Exactly - any female found receiving an annuity, and - bingo! - she's obviously the mother of one of his children. It is pretty clear that both John and Katherine were born before Richard married Anne, so it seems safe to assume that Richard did not continue his liasison(s) with their mother(s). Mancini specifically tells us that the purity of Richard's private life was well known.
Carol responds:
I'd say "exactly," except that you've already said it. The identity of Richard's mistress or mistresses, whom he clearly set aside after his marriage, is pure conjecture.
Speaking of conjecture, I just read in an article (I think it was the one about a possible design for Richard's memorial) which stated as fact that "Richard Plantagenet" (Richard of Eastwell) was Richard's illegitimate son. That's not a fact. It's a conjecture. The whole point of the exhumation would be to determine whether he shared Richard's Y chromosome, which would still only show that he was probably a Plantagenet but not that he was Richard's son. Richard acknowledged two illegitimate children. Why would he treat this one any differently? And yet the article identifies him without qualification as Richard's illegitimate son.
This article is, of course, only one example among many of rumor and conjecture repeated in news articles as if they were facts. If only facts weren't so hard to come by. I suppose I should be grateful that the author didn't name one of the alleged mistresses as Richard of Eastwell's mother.
Carol
I think the post should probably have been labelled 'lovers', not 'mistresses' as mistress implies a liaison after marriage.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 5:05
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Marie wrote:
>
> Exactly - any female found receiving an annuity, and - bingo! - she's obviously the mother of one of his children. It is pretty clear that both John and Katherine were born before Richard married Anne, so it seems safe to assume that Richard did not continue his liasison(s) with their mother(s). Mancini specifically tells us that the purity of Richard's private life was well known.
Carol responds:
I'd say "exactly," except that you've already said it. The identity of Richard's mistress or mistresses, whom he clearly set aside after his marriage, is pure conjecture.
Speaking of conjecture, I just read in an article (I think it was the one about a possible design for Richard's memorial) which stated as fact that "Richard Plantagenet" (Richard of Eastwell) was Richard's illegitimate son. That's not a fact. It's a conjecture. The whole point of the exhumation would be to determine whether he shared Richard's Y chromosome, which would still only show that he was probably a Plantagenet but not that he was Richard's son. Richard acknowledged two illegitimate children. Why would he treat this one any differently? And yet the article identifies him without qualification as Richard's illegitimate son.
This article is, of course, only one example among many of rumor and conjecture repeated in news articles as if they were facts. If only facts weren't so hard to come by. I suppose I should be grateful that the author didn't name one of the alleged mistresses as Richard of Eastwell's mother.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 16:06:45
Carol wrote:
"Those popes observed the letter of the canon law by avoiding marriage. It
was the spirit of the law they were violating. If I recall correctly,
Catholic priests in Ireland married if they chose until the Pope imposed
celibacy on them. That would have been around the time of Saint Patrick, I
think. At the same time, they were required to change their church calendar
to make it conform with Roman Catholic practice and even the monks had to
change their tonsure (their partially shaved heads) to match the Roman
Catholic monks.
By Richard's time, celibacy had long been a requirement for clerics at any
level, but it wasn't only the popes who violated their vows of chastity. I'm
trying to remember the name of the priest who held up his naked baby son (by
his mistress) to the congregation and praised the baby as a miracle of God.
Does anyone recall that story?
In any case, one of Richard's first speeches requested (or commanded?) the
English priests to set a better moral example for their congregations. I
suspect that violations of this sort were high on his list.
Before anyone pounces on me for the next paragraph, I am writing from a
historical perspective and not a religious one. My own religious views, if
any, are irrelevant. I'm discussing celibacy as it relates to Catholicism.
It's been a long time since I studied this topic, but if I make any errors,
I'm sure that someone will point them out.
Anyway, George, you may be familiar with the passage in the Epistles where
Paul tells his readers, "It is better to marry than to burn." Basically,
he's telling them that if they must have sex, they should do it within the
bonds of marriage. And, of course, there's the whole emphasis in the Gospels
on Mary's virginity. I don't want to bring up a religious discussion, which
would cause hurt feelings on all sides, much less contrast Paul's ideas with
modern ones. I'm only trying to say that the association of
celibacy/chastity with goodness and godliness goes back at least to the
earliest Christian writings and probably earlier. I'm not sure when celibacy
became a requirement for Roman (as opposed to Irish) Catholic priests, but
it must have been quite early on. It was certainly the expectation, if not
always the fact, in the fifteenth century."
Doug here:
IF I remember correctly the requirement for celibacy among the lower clergy
was part of the Hildebrandine reforms, which I remember as being around
1000AD, but it may very well have been 800AD. Before then, as with priests
and deacons in the Eastern Orthodox Church then, and now as I understand it,
the lower clergy COULD marry; it was only bishops and higher clergy that had
to be celibate. That celibacy could be life-long or acquired(?) through
divorce or as a result of the death of one's wife.
Nor would I be surprised to find out that one reason for the celibacy
requirement was to prevent alienation of gifts (money, land) from the Church
to an individual. The reforms also required better training for the lower
clergy, so I don't think it was ONLY about money - heavily accent that
"only", please.
I've also always understood that early Protestant theologians got their idea
about married clergy from the writings of the early Fathers of the (Roman)
Church about St. Peter and others. If marriage was good enough for St.
Peter...
However, as you say, by Richard's time all the clergy were expected to be
celibate and checking up on parish priests was a major component of the
visitations carried out by bishops or their designated lieutenants.
Doug
(please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong!).
"Those popes observed the letter of the canon law by avoiding marriage. It
was the spirit of the law they were violating. If I recall correctly,
Catholic priests in Ireland married if they chose until the Pope imposed
celibacy on them. That would have been around the time of Saint Patrick, I
think. At the same time, they were required to change their church calendar
to make it conform with Roman Catholic practice and even the monks had to
change their tonsure (their partially shaved heads) to match the Roman
Catholic monks.
By Richard's time, celibacy had long been a requirement for clerics at any
level, but it wasn't only the popes who violated their vows of chastity. I'm
trying to remember the name of the priest who held up his naked baby son (by
his mistress) to the congregation and praised the baby as a miracle of God.
Does anyone recall that story?
In any case, one of Richard's first speeches requested (or commanded?) the
English priests to set a better moral example for their congregations. I
suspect that violations of this sort were high on his list.
Before anyone pounces on me for the next paragraph, I am writing from a
historical perspective and not a religious one. My own religious views, if
any, are irrelevant. I'm discussing celibacy as it relates to Catholicism.
It's been a long time since I studied this topic, but if I make any errors,
I'm sure that someone will point them out.
Anyway, George, you may be familiar with the passage in the Epistles where
Paul tells his readers, "It is better to marry than to burn." Basically,
he's telling them that if they must have sex, they should do it within the
bonds of marriage. And, of course, there's the whole emphasis in the Gospels
on Mary's virginity. I don't want to bring up a religious discussion, which
would cause hurt feelings on all sides, much less contrast Paul's ideas with
modern ones. I'm only trying to say that the association of
celibacy/chastity with goodness and godliness goes back at least to the
earliest Christian writings and probably earlier. I'm not sure when celibacy
became a requirement for Roman (as opposed to Irish) Catholic priests, but
it must have been quite early on. It was certainly the expectation, if not
always the fact, in the fifteenth century."
Doug here:
IF I remember correctly the requirement for celibacy among the lower clergy
was part of the Hildebrandine reforms, which I remember as being around
1000AD, but it may very well have been 800AD. Before then, as with priests
and deacons in the Eastern Orthodox Church then, and now as I understand it,
the lower clergy COULD marry; it was only bishops and higher clergy that had
to be celibate. That celibacy could be life-long or acquired(?) through
divorce or as a result of the death of one's wife.
Nor would I be surprised to find out that one reason for the celibacy
requirement was to prevent alienation of gifts (money, land) from the Church
to an individual. The reforms also required better training for the lower
clergy, so I don't think it was ONLY about money - heavily accent that
"only", please.
I've also always understood that early Protestant theologians got their idea
about married clergy from the writings of the early Fathers of the (Roman)
Church about St. Peter and others. If marriage was good enough for St.
Peter...
However, as you say, by Richard's time all the clergy were expected to be
celibate and checking up on parish priests was a major component of the
visitations carried out by bishops or their designated lieutenants.
Doug
(please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong!).
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 16:28:25
"--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 16:42:40
I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
"--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047â¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfret⬦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
"--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047â¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfret⬦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 16:51:07
I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Â
>
>
>
> "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
>
> The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > >
> > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > >then him.
> > > >
> > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > >to dig.
> > > >
> > > > H.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders
> > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > pontificate
> > > > >
> > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Â
>
>
>
> "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
>
> The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > >
> > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > >then him.
> > > >
> > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > >to dig.
> > > >
> > > > H.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders
> > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > pontificate
> > > > >
> > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Warning: Banter
2013-02-13 17:03:58
I had an undying love at 16! Thank God that went away. He has no hair, a huge beer belly, rides a Harley etc. We do change our minds with the passage of time. At 16 most are in lust, not love!
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
"--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I only said 'mooted'.ý It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldý just be good manners.ý I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ý ý Hý ý"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> ý
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net<http://40sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14ýý"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ýý"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ýý"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867ýý"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ýý"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458ýý"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ýý"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopýýdia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ýý"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ýý"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904ýý"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ýý"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914ýý"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955ýý"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ýý" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047ýý"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ýý"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfretýýý.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
"--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I only said 'mooted'.ý It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldý just be good manners.ý I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ý ý Hý ý"
The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
Marie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> ý
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net<http://40sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14ýý"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ýý"31. According to Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ýý"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867ýý"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ýý"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458ýý"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ýý"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopýýdia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ýý"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ýý"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904ýý"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ýý"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914ýý"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955ýý"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ýý" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > 1047ýý"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ýý"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > Pomfretýýý.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 17:04:15
Sorry - I was referring to some novels. We have, I believe, one statement that he had a pure personal life, but like Clarence, who knows and it really wouldn't alter my opinion of him. He clearly wasn't in the same league as his brother.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:51
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Â
>
>
>
> "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
>
> The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > >
> > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > >then him.
> > > >
> > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > >to dig.
> > > >
> > > > H.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders
> > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > pontificate
> > > > >
> > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:51
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
Marie
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Â
>
>
>
> "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
>
> The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > >
> > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > >then him.
> > > >
> > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > >to dig.
> > > >
> > > > H.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > orders
> > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > pontificate
> > > > >
> > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 18:09:23
I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 18:12:58
Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 18:19:54
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"ÂÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"ÂÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 18:42:46
Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
>mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
>statements to the effect that he didn't.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
>until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
>Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
>mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
>know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
>etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
>'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
>Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
>his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
>there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
>was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
>is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good
>manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
>thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
>have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
>Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
>has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
>him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
>references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
>until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
>occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
>when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
>have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
>Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
>way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
>expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
>from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
>historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
>also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
>far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
>Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
>under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
>mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
>he
>
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
>all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
>says he
>
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
>to
>
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
>alive
>
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
>Weir). He
>
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
>came
>
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
>Katherine
>
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
>Clarence and
>
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
>Burgh of
>
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
>yielded
>
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
>where she
>
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
>another, Sir
>
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
>and then
>
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
>continue
>
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
>Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
>faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
>notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
>Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According
>to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
>Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
>Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
>led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
>called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
>and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
>and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he
>took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy
>Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
>were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
>Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
>Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
>three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy
>orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
>one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
>clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children
>during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
>According to
> > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
>favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
>took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
>Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
>took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
>their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being
>the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
>are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
>another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother
>of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
>I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
>Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
>are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
>of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
>and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
>created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
>also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of
>adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
>XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
>Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
>they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
>had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
>concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
>palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
>Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
>office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
>days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
>that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
>finally
> > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
>"many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
>Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
>St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
>and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
>accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
>orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
>dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
>Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
>Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
>seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
>mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
>and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
>the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
>children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
>mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
>statements to the effect that he didn't.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
>until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
>Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
>mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
>know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
>etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
>'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
>Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
>his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
>there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
>was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
>is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÂ just be good
>manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
>thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
>have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
>Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> >
> > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
>has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
>him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
>references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
>until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
>occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
>when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
>have mistresses or flings.
> > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
>Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
>way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
>expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
>from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
>historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
>also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
>far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
>Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > To: ""
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
>under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
>mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
>he
>
> > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
>all...
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
>says he
>
> > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
>to
>
> > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
>alive
>
> > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
>Weir). He
>
> > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
>came
>
> > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
>Katherine
>
> > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
>Clarence and
>
> > > > >then him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
>Burgh of
>
> > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
>yielded
>
> > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
>where she
>
> > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
>another, Sir
>
> > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
>and then
>
> > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
>continue
>
> > > > >to dig.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
>Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
>faithful
> > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
>notion of
> > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
>Bible
> > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31. According
>to Clement of
> > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
>Peter's
> > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
>Peter and
> > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
>led out
> > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
>called
> > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
>and
> > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
>and their
> > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed before he
>took Holy
> > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy
>Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
>were still
> > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
>Palace.
> > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
>Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
>three
> > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking holy
>orders, and had
> > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
>one in
> > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
>clergy, and
> > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
chastity.[11]
> > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate children
>during his
> > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
>According to
> > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
>favour of
> > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
>took holy
> > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
>Medici, Duke
> > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
>took holy
> > > > > > orders
> > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
>their
> > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being
>the
> > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
>are
> > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
Liber
> > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
>another early
> > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was brother
>of Alberic
> > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
>I, so
> > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
>Fauvarque
> > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
>are
> > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
>of
> > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
>and her
> > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
>created
> > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
>also
> > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of
>adultery and
> > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
>XXXVII that
> > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
>Cremona
> > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
>they did
> > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
>had
> > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
>concubine,
> > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
>palace
> > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
>Christian
> > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
>office he
> > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
>days after
> > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
>that he
> > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
>finally
> > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
>"many vile
> > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
>Dialogues
> > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
>St.
> > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
>and
> > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
>accused
> > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
>orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
>dei
> > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
>Cesare
> > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
>Alessandro
> > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
>seven,
> > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>Carol Darling
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
>mistresses of
> > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
>and
> > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun,
> > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
>the
> > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
>children,
> > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais,
> > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 19:02:21
I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> >have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> >he
> >
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> >all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
>
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> >says he
> >
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> >to
> >
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> >alive
> >
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> >Weir). He
> >
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> >came
> >
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> >Katherine
> >
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> >Clarence and
> >
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> >Burgh of
> >
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> >yielded
> >
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> >where she
> >
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> >another, Sir
> >
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> >and then
> >
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> >continue
> >
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> >faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> >notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> >Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> >to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> >Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> >Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> >led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> >called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> >and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> >and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> >took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> >were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> >Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> >three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> >orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> >one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> >clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> >during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> >According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> >favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> >took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> >took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> >their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> >the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> >are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> >another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> >of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> >I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> >are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> >of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> >and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> >created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> >also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> >adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> >Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> >they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> >had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> >concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> >palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> >Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> >office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> >days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> >that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> >finally
> > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> >"many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> >Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> >St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> >and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> >accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> >dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> >Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> >Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> >seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> >mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> >and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> >the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> >children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> >have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> >he
> >
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> >all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
>
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> >says he
> >
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> >to
> >
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> >alive
> >
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> >Weir). He
> >
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> >came
> >
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> >Katherine
> >
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> >Clarence and
> >
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> >Burgh of
> >
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> >yielded
> >
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> >where she
> >
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> >another, Sir
> >
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> >and then
> >
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> >continue
> >
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> >faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> >notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> >Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> >to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> >Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> >Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> >led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> >called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> >and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> >and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> >took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> >were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> >Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> >three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> >orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> >one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> >clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> >during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> >According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> >favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> >took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> >took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> >their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> >the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> >are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> >another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> >of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> >I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> >are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> >of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> >and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> >created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> >also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> >adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> >Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> >they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> >had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> >concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> >palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> >Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> >office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> >days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> >that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> >finally
> > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> >"many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> >Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> >St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> >and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> >accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> >dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> >Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> >Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> >seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> >mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> >and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> >the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> >children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 19:55:43
I agree with you Eileen!
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047â¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret⬦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914â¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047â¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfret⬦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 20:13:00
As did other people there that day.....I cannot understand who thought it would look ok in the beautiful surroundings of Middleham Castle...It stands out like a.....ummmm...onion in a bunch of lillies...Eileen
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I agree with you Eileen!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I agree with you Eileen!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late, a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 20:53:49
Richard was almost 13.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > >he
> > >
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > >all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > >says he
> > >
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > >to
> > >
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > >alive
> > >
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > >Weir). He
> > >
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > >came
> > >
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > >Katherine
> > >
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > >Clarence and
> > >
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > >Burgh of
> > >
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > >yielded
> > >
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > >where she
> > >
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > >another, Sir
> > >
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > >and then
> > >
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > >continue
> > >
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > >faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > >notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > >Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > >led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > >called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > >and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > >and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > >were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > >three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > >one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > >during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > >According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > >favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > >took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > >took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > >their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > >the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > >are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > >another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > >I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > >are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > >of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > >and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > >created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > >also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > >they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > >had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > >palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > >Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > >office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > >days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > >that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > >finally
> > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > >St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > >and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > >accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > >dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > >seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > >and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > >the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > >children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais,
> > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: ""
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > >he
> > >
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > >all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> >
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > >says he
> > >
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > >to
> > >
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > >alive
> > >
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > >Weir). He
> > >
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > >came
> > >
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > >Katherine
> > >
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > >Clarence and
> > >
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > >Burgh of
> > >
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > >yielded
> > >
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > >where she
> > >
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > >another, Sir
> > >
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > >and then
> > >
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > >continue
> > >
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > >faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > >notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > >Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > >led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > >called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > >and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > >and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > >were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > >three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > >one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > >during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > >According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > >favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > >took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > >took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > >their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > >the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > >are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > >another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > >I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > >are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > >of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > >and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > >created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > >also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > >they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > >had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > >palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > >Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > >office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > >days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > >that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > >finally
> > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > >St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > >and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > >accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > >dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > >seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > >and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > >the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > >children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais,
> > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 21:01:00
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
Carol responds:
Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
Carol
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
Carol responds:
Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 21:02:03
Maybe at an age to start noticing girls...but I feel Anne would have been a tad too young for him to notice her in that respect. But the chances are he was kind to her but on the other hand he could have regarded her as a pain in the butt.. and she could have even 'idolised' him.....even then. Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Richard was almost 13.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >
> > > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > > >
> > > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > To: ""
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > > >he
> > > >
> > > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > > >all...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >
> > > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > > >says he
> > > >
> > > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > > >alive
> > > >
> > > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > >Weir). He
> > > >
> > > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > > >came
> > > >
> > > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > >Katherine
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > > >Clarence and
> > > >
> > > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > >Burgh of
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > > >yielded
> > > >
> > > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > > >where she
> > > >
> > > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > > >another, Sir
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > > >and then
> > > >
> > > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > > >continue
> > > >
> > > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > >faithful
> > > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > >notion of
> > > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > >Bible
> > > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > >led out
> > > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > >called
> > > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > >and their
> > > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > >were still
> > > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > > >three
> > > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > >one in
> > > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > >during his
> > > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > >According to
> > > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > >favour of
> > > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > >their
> > > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > >the
> > > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > > >are
> > > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > Liber
> > > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > >another early
> > > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > > >I, so
> > > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > >are
> > > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > > >of
> > > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > > >and her
> > > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > >created
> > > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > >also
> > > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > >they did
> > > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > >had
> > > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > >palace
> > > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > >Christian
> > > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > >office he
> > > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > >days after
> > > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > >that he
> > > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > >finally
> > > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > >St.
> > > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > >accused
> > > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > > >dei
> > > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > >seven,
> > > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun,
> > > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > >the
> > > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > >children,
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Richard was almost 13.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >
> > > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > >
> > > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > > >
> > > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > To: ""
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > > >he
> > > >
> > > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > > >all...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >
> > > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > > >says he
> > > >
> > > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > > >alive
> > > >
> > > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > >Weir). He
> > > >
> > > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > > >came
> > > >
> > > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > >Katherine
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > > >Clarence and
> > > >
> > > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > >Burgh of
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > > >yielded
> > > >
> > > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > > >where she
> > > >
> > > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > > >another, Sir
> > > >
> > > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > > >and then
> > > >
> > > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > > >continue
> > > >
> > > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > >faithful
> > > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > >notion of
> > > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > >Bible
> > > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > >led out
> > > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > >called
> > > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > >and their
> > > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > >were still
> > > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > > >three
> > > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > >one in
> > > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > >during his
> > > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > >According to
> > > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > >favour of
> > > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > >their
> > > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > >the
> > > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > > >are
> > > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > Liber
> > > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > >another early
> > > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > > >I, so
> > > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > >are
> > > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > > >of
> > > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > > >and her
> > > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > >created
> > > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > >also
> > > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > >they did
> > > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > >had
> > > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > >palace
> > > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > >Christian
> > > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > >office he
> > > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > >days after
> > > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > >that he
> > > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > >finally
> > > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > >St.
> > > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > >accused
> > > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > > >dei
> > > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > >seven,
> > > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > >and
> > > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun,
> > > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > >the
> > > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > >children,
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re; Mistresses and mothers
2013-02-13 21:17:18
I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowý Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasý that late, ý a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
Carol responds:
Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
Carol
On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowý Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasý that late, ý a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
Carol responds:
Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses and mothers
2013-02-13 21:21:26
Hi All - Re Katherine Haute, Anne Easter Smith's first Ricardian novel
centered on Katherine Haute. Though this is fiction, Anne was extremely
careful and painstaking in weeding out the timeline and locations for
Katherine H. as far as she was able. Simply as a wonderful read I
recommend it (and her other books, too); as intelligent speculation on the
life and circumstances of Katherine Haute, I also recommend it.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught
> history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her
> source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either
> gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in
> their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:
> justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to
> grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford
> trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a
> bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have
> come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together,
> attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster,
> whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it,
> the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father
> to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on
> their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy
> she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard,
> at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all,
> somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I
> rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that
> time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both
> of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
centered on Katherine Haute. Though this is fiction, Anne was extremely
careful and painstaking in weeding out the timeline and locations for
Katherine H. as far as she was able. Simply as a wonderful read I
recommend it (and her other books, too); as intelligent speculation on the
life and circumstances of Katherine Haute, I also recommend it.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught
> history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her
> source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either
> gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in
> their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:
> justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to
> grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford
> trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a
> bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have
> come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together,
> attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster,
> whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it,
> the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father
> to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on
> their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy
> she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard,
> at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all,
> somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I
> rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that
> time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both
> of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 21:22:58
We also can deduce that they shared literary interests since both their
names are in a couple of Richard's books.
Rather nice.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:09 PM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had
> at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously
> ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry
> and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of
> course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think
> she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to
> grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford
> trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a
> bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion
> (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived
> pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former
> lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH
> quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But
> that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I
> don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one
> another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his
> breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick
> for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective.
> Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in
> the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North
> and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the
> Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably
> just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have
> so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester,
> and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally
> reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that
> tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed
> fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be
> a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had
> a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment
> by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:
> megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:
> hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31.
> According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed
> before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy
> Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking
> holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate
> children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised
> nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son
> before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son
> before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents
> of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was
> brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both
> Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in
> 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with
> Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
names are in a couple of Richard's books.
Rather nice.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:09 PM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had
> at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously
> ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry
> and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of
> course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think
> she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to
> grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford
> trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a
> bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion
> (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived
> pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former
> lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH
> quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But
> that couldÃÂ just be good manners.ÃÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I
> don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one
> another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his
> breakdown after her death.ÃÂ ÃÂ HÃÂ Ã"Â
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick
> for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective.
> Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in
> the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North
> and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the
> Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably
> just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have
> so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester,
> and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally
> reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that
> tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed
> fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be
> a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had
> a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment
> by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: ""
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:
> megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:
> hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ââ¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ââ¬"31.
> According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ââ¬"523) was married and widowed
> before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ââ¬"872) was married before he took Holy
> Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ââ¬"1268) was married, before taking
> holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ââ¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate
> children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ââ¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÒ¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised
> nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ââ¬"1534) had one illegitimate son
> before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ââ¬"1585) had an illegitimate son
> before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ââ¬"911) was accused by his opponents
> of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ââ¬"966): John XI was
> brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914ââ¬"928) had romantic affairs with both
> Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ââ¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ââ¬" became pope in 1044, again in
> 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047ââ¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ââ¬"1503) had a long affair with
> Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais,
> > > > > > > Pomfretââ¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses and mothers
2013-02-13 21:25:09
That should have been DEAR friend. iPad typing on a bumpy road.....that's my story, and I am sticking to it.
On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 21:40:16
Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Maybe at an age to start noticing girls...but I feel Anne would have been a tad too young for him to notice her in that respect. But the chances are he was kind to her but on the other hand he could have regarded her as a pain in the butt.. and she could have even 'idolised' him.....even then. Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Richard was almost 13.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > > > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > > > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > > > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > > > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > > > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > > > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > > > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > > > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > > > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > > > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > > > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > > > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > > > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > > > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > > > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > > > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > > > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > > > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > > > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > > > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > > > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > > > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > > > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > > > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > > > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > > > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > > > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > > > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > > > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > > > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > > > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > > > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > > > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > > > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > > > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > > > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > > > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > > > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > > > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > To: ""
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > > > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > > > >he
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > > > >all...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > > > >says he
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > > > >alive
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > > >Weir). He
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > > > >came
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > >Katherine
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > > > >Clarence and
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > > >Burgh of
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > > > >yielded
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > > > >where she
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > > > >another, Sir
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > > > >and then
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > > > >continue
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > > >faithful
> > > > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > > >notion of
> > > > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > > >Bible
> > > > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > > > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > > >led out
> > > > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > > >called
> > > > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > > >and their
> > > > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > > >were still
> > > > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > > > >three
> > > > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > > >one in
> > > > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > > >during his
> > > > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > >According to
> > > > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > > >favour of
> > > > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > > >their
> > > > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > > > >are
> > > > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > > Liber
> > > > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > >another early
> > > > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > > > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > > > >I, so
> > > > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > > >are
> > > > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > > > >of
> > > > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > > > >and her
> > > > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > > >created
> > > > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > > >also
> > > > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > > > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > > >they did
> > > > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > > >had
> > > > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > > >palace
> > > > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > > >Christian
> > > > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > > >office he
> > > > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > > >days after
> > > > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > > >that he
> > > > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > > >finally
> > > > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > > >St.
> > > > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > >accused
> > > > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > > > >dei
> > > > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > > >seven,
> > > > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > > fun,
> > > > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > > >children,
> > > > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Maybe at an age to start noticing girls...but I feel Anne would have been a tad too young for him to notice her in that respect. But the chances are he was kind to her but on the other hand he could have regarded her as a pain in the butt.. and she could have even 'idolised' him.....even then. Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Richard was almost 13.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Richard was old than six when he went to live with the Warwick family...but Im not too sure about Anne...?
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would they have been of Westermarck-imprint age?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:09:26 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a
> > > > quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot.
> > > > I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a
> > > > lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during
> > > > the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine
> > > > of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see
> > > > him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but
> > > > in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had
> > > > >mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary
> > > > >statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute
> > > > >until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind.
> > > > >Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified
> > > > >mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we
> > > > >know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials
> > > > >etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for
> > > > >'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only said 'mooted'. It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K
> > > > >Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre
> > > > >his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and
> > > > >there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage
> > > > >was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she
> > > > >is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that could just be good
> > > > >manners. I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart
> > > > >thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could
> > > > >have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that
> > > > >Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.  H Â"Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13
> > > > >has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping
> > > > >him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace
> > > > >references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household
> > > > >until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London
> > > > >occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So
> > > > >when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not
> > > > >have mistresses or flings.
> > > > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine
> > > > >Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the
> > > > >way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse
> > > > >expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions
> > > > >from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober
> > > > >historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is
> > > > >also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so
> > > > >far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her
> > > > >Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > To: ""
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving
> > > > >under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > >mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > > > >he
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > > > >all...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > > > >says he
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still
> > > > >alive
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > > >Weir). He
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she
> > > > >came
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > >Katherine
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > > > >Clarence and
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > > >Burgh of
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > > > >yielded
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > > > >where she
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > > > >another, Sir
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > > > >and then
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > > > >continue
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > >Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > > >faithful
> > > > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > > >notion of
> > > > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > > >Bible
> > > > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14â€"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â€"31. According
> > > > >to Clement of
> > > > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > > >Peter's
> > > > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > > >Peter and
> > > > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > > >led out
> > > > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > > >called
> > > > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > > >and their
> > > > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â€"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > > >took Holy
> > > > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867â€"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > > >Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > > >were still
> > > > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > > >Palace.
> > > > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > >Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had
> > > > >three
> > > > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â€"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > > >orders, and had
> > > > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458â€"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > > >one in
> > > > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > > >clergy, and
> > > > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â€"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > > >during his
> > > > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > >According to
> > > > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > > >favour of
> > > > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â€"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > > >Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â€"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > > >took holy
> > > > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > > >their
> > > > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904â€"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations
> > > > >are
> > > > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > > Liber
> > > > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > >another early
> > > > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â€"966): John XI was brother
> > > > >of Alberic
> > > > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic
> > > > >I, so
> > > > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > > >Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > > >are
> > > > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions
> > > > >of
> > > > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John X (914â€"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora
> > > > >and her
> > > > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > > >created
> > > > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > > >also
> > > > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955â€"963) was accused by his adversaries of
> > > > >adultery and
> > > > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > > >XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > > >Cremona
> > > > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > > >they did
> > > > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > > >had
> > > > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > > >concubine,
> > > > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > > >palace
> > > > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > > >Christian
> > > > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > > >office he
> > > > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > > >days after
> > > > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > > >that he
> > > > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â€" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > > >finally
> > > > > > > > > > 1047â€"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > > >"many vile
> > > > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > > >Dialogues
> > > > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > > >St.
> > > > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > >accused
> > > > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > >orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â€"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza
> > > > >dei
> > > > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > > >Cesare
> > > > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > > >Alessandro
> > > > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > > >seven,
> > > > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > >Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > >mistresses of
> > > > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > > fun,
> > > > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > > >children,
> > > > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > > > Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses and mothers
2013-02-13 21:47:15
Your friend may well be right, but for the ordinary folk we don't have many records to base things like age of marriage on. Only a few cases that came to the church courts, and things like that and they may not be typical. Certainly in later centuries, when we have parish registers, we tend to see couples marrying in their twenties. Even in the Middle Ages there would have been constriants to early marriage for a lot of people - apprenticeships, the need for girls to go into service to save money to set themselves up, etc. I suspect early marriage was commonest at the very top and very bottom of society.
Marie
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I have have shared many of our emails with a fear friend who taught history for, as she says, at least 200 years. She looked up (I will get her source) that the average Medieval woman married at 14 to 16, and either gave birth to, or miscarried, a baby every two years, until they were in their 40's when presumably, they were either menopausal, ill or menopausal.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, people married earlier then. But that aside, they would have come to know each other as cousins and perhaps friends, eating together, attending church together, and so on. Her marriage to Edward of Lancaster, whom she had been brought to regard as, to put it as Warwick would put it, the French bitch's bastard. It must have been quite a shock for her father to come to terms with Margaret after all the losses she had inflicted on their family, much less to acquiesce to an arranged marriage with the boy she had always been taught was Somerset's illegitimate son. With Richard, at least, she knew whom she would be marrying. And he had, after all, somehow found her disguised as a kitchen maid and taken her to sanctuary. I rather suspect that, if she wasn't in love with him before, she was by that time. Which is not to say that it wasn't an advantageous marriage for both of them in other respects.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 21:58:49
I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàHÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàHÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 22:04:38
I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÆ'‚ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÆ'‚ just be good manners.ÃÆ'‚ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ HÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚"ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'Æ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÆ'‚ It was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÆ'‚ just be good manners.ÃÆ'‚ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ HÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚"ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'Æ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 22:11:05
Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?) characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?' Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 22:15:07
I once posited that the 3 brothers were out of The Godfather: Sonny, the impetuous womanizer, Fredo, the weak brother, and Michael, the thoughtful, quiet outsider. I still think the template works! But I know I'm in the minority here... Maire.
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?) characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?' Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
>
> I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?) characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?' Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
>
> I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
>
Re: York brothers (split off from the Mistresses thread)
2013-02-13 22:30:33
That seems to be a pattern, then- I don't know if anyone here's familiar with
the Marvel Comics characters they loosely based on Norse mythology, but the
correspondence between Thor, Loki, and Balder and Edward, George, and Richard
(and those archetypes mentioned below) is pretty incredible (despite the fact
that Loki was the one partly based on the general perception of Richard,
particularly in the recent film series- I remember Entertainment Weekly
referring to him circa "The Avengers" as looking "like Richard III as played by
[Goth rock star] Marylin Manson").
I'd honestly like to see someone other than Philippa Gregory tackle the whole
trio-of-brothers aspect at hand, rather than focusing on one or the other out of
Edward and Richard. A composer friend of mine mentioned that she'd love to work
on developing a musical out of them, but she's dead-set on finishing a musical
version of "The Other Boleyn Girl" (blah) first, and there's no way of
dissuading her from that. (There's also the fact that she'd insist on writing it
with the Operettszinház Budapesti in Hungary's in-house company in mind, of all
venues- particularly Szabó P. Szilveszter as Richard- and that's... highly
unlikely.)
But anyway, has this angle ever been taken? I suppose I just have a weakness for
sibling-dynamics stories.
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 5:15:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I once posited that the 3 brothers were out of The Godfather: Sonny, the
impetuous womanizer, Fredo, the weak brother, and Michael, the thoughtful, quiet
outsider. I still think the template works! But I know I'm in the minority
here... Maire.
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality
>traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?)
>characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?'
>Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
>
>
> I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask
>about. Maybe someone else will?
>
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the
>years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the
>boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles
>made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at
>his brother's execution...Poor George
>
the Marvel Comics characters they loosely based on Norse mythology, but the
correspondence between Thor, Loki, and Balder and Edward, George, and Richard
(and those archetypes mentioned below) is pretty incredible (despite the fact
that Loki was the one partly based on the general perception of Richard,
particularly in the recent film series- I remember Entertainment Weekly
referring to him circa "The Avengers" as looking "like Richard III as played by
[Goth rock star] Marylin Manson").
I'd honestly like to see someone other than Philippa Gregory tackle the whole
trio-of-brothers aspect at hand, rather than focusing on one or the other out of
Edward and Richard. A composer friend of mine mentioned that she'd love to work
on developing a musical out of them, but she's dead-set on finishing a musical
version of "The Other Boleyn Girl" (blah) first, and there's no way of
dissuading her from that. (There's also the fact that she'd insist on writing it
with the Operettszinház Budapesti in Hungary's in-house company in mind, of all
venues- particularly Szabó P. Szilveszter as Richard- and that's... highly
unlikely.)
But anyway, has this angle ever been taken? I suppose I just have a weakness for
sibling-dynamics stories.
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 5:15:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I once posited that the 3 brothers were out of The Godfather: Sonny, the
impetuous womanizer, Fredo, the weak brother, and Michael, the thoughtful, quiet
outsider. I still think the template works! But I know I'm in the minority
here... Maire.
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality
>traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?)
>characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?'
>Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
>
>
> I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask
>about. Maybe someone else will?
>
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the
>years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the
>boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles
>made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at
>his brother's execution...Poor George
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-13 23:25:14
Birth order, I think is the correct term.
On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?) characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?' Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Has anyone every analyzed the three brothers' actions, behavior or personality traits in terms of the Eldest, Middle, and Youngest (birth order?) characteristics? Something like "Infinitely Confident Oldest," "'Where's MINE?' Middle Son," and "Peacemaker Youngest Son"?
I'm sorry...I don't know the correct terminology of what I'm trying to ask about. Maybe someone else will?
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 09:36:52
And strangely enough it was Starkey (of all people) who emphasised that George was actually heir to the throne for nearly ten years; not a comfortable position to be in with all the possible Woodville machinations
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 22:04
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowÃ’â¬aàRichard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasÃ’â¬aàthat late, Ã’â¬aàa bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàjust be good manners.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
HÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡"Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Òâ¬aæ.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 22:04
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I know Hilary...I just feel George has been a bit misunderstood over the years...Apparently he was Margaret's favourite brother...I know he pushed the boundaries at times but I dont think he was all bad...Probably the Woodvilles made the situation worse..and I choose to believe that Richard was devastated at his brother's execution...Poor George
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married. Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for Warwick, yes we knowÃ’â¬aàRichard was back with Edward by 1469 and attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16, if it wasÃ’â¬aàthat late, Ã’â¬aàa bit young for 'undying love'. Just cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàjust be good manners.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
HÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡"Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465 to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as, so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"523) was married and widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1464) had at least two illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1492) had two illegitimate children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12] According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"911) was accused by his opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"966): John XI was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Òâ¬aæ.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 15:26:05
Marie wrote:
//snip//
"...The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
harden into supposed fact very quickly."
//snip//
Doug here:
Ain't it the truth!
(We won't even go into "chroniclers" and playwrights...)
Doug
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > >says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > >to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was
> > >still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and
> > >she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > >Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > >Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > >yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > >where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > >another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > >and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > >continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > > faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > > notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > > Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â?"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â?"31. According to
> > > > Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > > Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > > Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > > led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > > called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > > and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > > and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â?"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > > took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â?"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > > Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > > were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > > Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and
> > > > had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â?"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > > orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â?"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > > one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > > clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â?"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > > during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > > favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â?"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > > took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > > Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â?"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > > took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > > their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â?"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > > the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > > Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â?"966): John XI was brother of
> > > > Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > > Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > > are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â?"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and
> > > > her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > > created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > > also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â?"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery
> > > > and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > > XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > > Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > > they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > > had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > > concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > > palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > > Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > > office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > > days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > > that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â?" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > > finally
> > > > 1047â?"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > > "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > > Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > > St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > > and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â?"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > > Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > > Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > > seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > > > Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > > and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > > fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > > the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > > children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > Calais,
> > > > Pomfretâ?¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
//snip//
"...The trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
harden into supposed fact very quickly."
//snip//
Doug here:
Ain't it the truth!
(We won't even go into "chroniclers" and playwrights...)
Doug
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the time, and
> > he
> > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress and
> > all...
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative of the
> > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine - Horrox
> > >says he
> > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives rise
> > >to
> > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she was
> > >still alive
> > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > >
> > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson and
> > > Weir). He
> > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman' and
> > >she came
> > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > >Katherine
> > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked for
> > >Clarence and
> > >then him.
> > >
> > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir Thomas
> > > Burgh of
> > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have so far
> > >yielded
> > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't know
> > >where she
> > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated because
> > >another, Sir
> > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in Scotland
> > >and then
> > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at Bosworth. I
> > >continue
> > >to dig.
> > >
> > > H.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS and
> > > > faithful
> > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that the
> > > > notion of
> > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the
> > > > Bible
> > > > verses Matthew 8:14â?"15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29â?"31. According to
> > > > Clement of
> > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his wife was
> > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century,
> > > > Peter's
> > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For
> > > > Peter and
> > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife
> > > > led out
> > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and
> > > > called
> > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,
> > > > and
> > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed,
> > > > and their
> > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514â?"523) was married and widowed before he
> > > > took Holy
> > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > Pope Adrian II (867â?"872) was married before he took Holy
> > > > Orders,[7] to a
> > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter
> > > > were still
> > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran
> > > > Palace.
> > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and
> > > > had three
> > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > Pope Clement IV (1265â?"1268) was married, before taking holy
> > > > orders, and had
> > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > Pope Pius II (1458â?"1464) had at least two illegitimate children,
> > > > one in
> > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered the
> > > > clergy, and
> > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484â?"1492) had two illegitimate children
> > > > during his
> > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > According to
> > > > the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in
> > > > favour of
> > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly
> > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > Pope Clement VII (1523â?"1534) had one illegitimate son before he
> > > > took holy
> > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro de'
> > > > Medici, Duke
> > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source needed]
> > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572â?"1585) had an illegitimate son before he
> > > > took holy
> > > > orders
> > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active during
> > > > their
> > > > pontificate
> > > >
> > > > Pope Sergius III (904â?"911) was accused by his opponents of being
> > > > the
> > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > accusations are
> > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as the
> > > > Liber
> > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > another early
> > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894â?"966): John XI was brother of
> > > > Alberic
> > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand
> > > > Fauvarque
> > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood
> > > > are
> > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > mentions of
> > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope
> > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > Pope John X (914â?"928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and
> > > > her
> > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes to be
> > > > created
> > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation needed] (See
> > > > also
> > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope John XII (955â?"963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery
> > > > and
> > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume
> > > > XXXVII that
> > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of
> > > > Cremona
> > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery, which
> > > > they did
> > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he
> > > > had
> > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's
> > > > concubine,
> > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred
> > > > palace
> > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was "a
> > > > Christian
> > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the
> > > > office he
> > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have died 8
> > > > days after
> > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28] others
> > > > that he
> > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing
> > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032â?" became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and
> > > > finally
> > > > 1047â?"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of
> > > > "many vile
> > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of
> > > > Dialogues
> > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life prompted
> > > > St.
> > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general,
> > > > and
> > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > accused
> > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[40]
> > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492â?"1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei
> > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate children
> > > > Cesare
> > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of
> > > > Alessandro
> > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at least
> > > > seven,
> > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > > > Of Carol Darling
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > mistresses of
> > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom
> > > > and
> > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > > fun,
> > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > > the
> > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > > children,
> > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > Calais,
> > > > Pomfretâ?¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 15:42:32
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 15:52:05
Having grown up with a brother 2 years older than me, same as the age diff between George and Richard, and with a seemingly perfect instinct
for getting himself - and me tagging loyally along - into regular, and sometimes serious, situations, I have to admit my sympathy is more for Richard than George.
We got it sorted out in time-honoured fashion eventually and have been close ever since :)
Aidan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
for getting himself - and me tagging loyally along - into regular, and sometimes serious, situations, I have to admit my sympathy is more for Richard than George.
We got it sorted out in time-honoured fashion eventually and have been close ever since :)
Aidan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; George
2013-02-14 15:52:49
One can only imagine the jockeying for greatness amongst the various factions&&. We know politics now is dirty business, but to be King of the Realm, we do know how bloody that was. I cannot imagine living in those circumstances, where you never knew who was listening, who was your friend, and indeed, would your brother actually support you. I would think George and Richard would have a closer relationship, forged when they knew how horribly their father, other brothers, cousins, etc. died, and how lonely and heartsick they must have been when they were shipped away to safety.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 16:01:04
Perhaps I should start the George of Clarence Society - and be drummed out of here! Despite all you say George comes over as an intelligent (tops at chess wasn't he) but overgrown kid and not in the league of heavy Henry . But .... that's just my opinion and I doubt Ankarette Twynho would agree.
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
Utrecht, but that's just me."
Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
look how THAT turned out!
Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
Doug
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
ways...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
> Â
>
> I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > cynical me!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > >
> > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > Haute was made.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > time, and he
> > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > and all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > >rise to
> > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > >and she came
> > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > >then him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > >know where she
> > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > George
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 16:03:59
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
Or being eaten up by the belief that he was actually York's eldest son?
Marie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÆ'‚ÂÂ just
> > > > > be good manners.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > HÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚"ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'Æ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
Or being eaten up by the belief that he was actually York's eldest son?
Marie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we know Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it was that late,  a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃÆ'‚ÂÂ just
> > > > > be good manners.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > HÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚"ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃÆ'Æ'¦dia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492ÃÆ'¢â‚¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 16:07:13
Indeed!
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:03
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
Or being eaten up by the belief that he was actually York's eldest son?
Marie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we knowÃ’â¬aà Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it wasÃ’â¬aà that late, Ã’â¬aà a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà just
> > > > > be good manners.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > HÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡"Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Òâ¬aæ.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:03
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
Or being eaten up by the belief that he was actually York's eldest son?
Marie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we knowÃ’â¬aà Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it wasÃ’â¬aà that late, Ã’â¬aà a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà just
> > > > > be good manners.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > HÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡"Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Òâ¬aæ.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 18:23:26
Doug
I like George
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:
> Having grown up with a brother 2 years older than me, same as the age diff between George and Richard, and with a seemingly perfect instinct
> for getting himself - and me tagging loyally along - into regular, and sometimes serious, situations, I have to admit my sympathy is more for Richard than George.
>
> We got it sorted out in time-honoured fashion eventually and have been close ever since :)
>
> Aidan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
I like George
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:
> Having grown up with a brother 2 years older than me, same as the age diff between George and Richard, and with a seemingly perfect instinct
> for getting himself - and me tagging loyally along - into regular, and sometimes serious, situations, I have to admit my sympathy is more for Richard than George.
>
> We got it sorted out in time-honoured fashion eventually and have been close ever since :)
>
> Aidan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt
> there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in
> Utrecht, but that's just me."
>
> Personally, I've little doubt George was indeed "likeable" but, so I
> understand, so was the son of his neice (at least when he was younger) and
> look how THAT turned out!
> Genetics? The result of fame/power going to his head? A mixture of both?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Anne knew that she would need someone in a strong position to protect her
> from George..I cannot help it but I like George..anyway...so in a
> coldblooded way, if you want to look at it like that, they both helped each
> other out. But yes...I should imagine they were both well pleased when they
> found each other again, and got themselves hitched...When you think of some
> of the partners that could have been hoisted on them...I wonder if they
> could not believe how lucky they both were. And then of course....Edward
> came along.. those days at Middleham must have been quite wonderful in some
> ways...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I see her as quite a canny woman who knew she was getting a good deal
> > when she married her prince - and love indeed almost certainly did grow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I always thought that because of the contact that Anne and Richard had
> > had at a quite young and tender age that rather than love they liked each
> > other...a lot. I do think that love grew once they were married.
> > Well...Anne seemed to spend a lot of time with him and we do know that
> > Richard never left Westminster during the period when Anne became
> > seriously ill and her death....Unlike poor Katherine of Aragon, cast out
> > by Fat Harry and writing to him that she desired to see him....all to no
> > avail of course...In some ways Anne was extremely unlucky but in other
> > ways I think she was very lucky indeed..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't claim there was "undying love". The question of whether Richard
> > > had mistresses after his marriage doesn't hinge on that - we have clear
> > > contemporary statements to the effect that he didn't.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that was the other Katherine Haute, who did not marry Richard
> > > > Haute until at least 1475 and was then a widow? As I said, I've no axe
> > > > to grind. Someone merely asked who were Richard's potentially
> > > > indentified mistresses/lovers and I gave them what info I had. As for
> > > > Warwick, yes we knowÃÂ Richard was back with Edward by 1469 and
> > > > attended the Hungerford trials etc. However, I still think 12 and 16,
> > > > if it wasÃÂ that late, ÃÂ a bit young for 'undying love'. Just
> > > > cynical me!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:28
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I only said 'mooted'.Ã’â¬aàIt was the sensible Horrox who came up
> > > > > with K Haute and Richard was in East Anglia during the Clarence
> > > > > rebellion (that was pre his marriage). John of Pomfret was probably
> > > > > also conceived pre-marriage and there's nothing to stop him making
> > > > > payments to a former lover. The Anne marriage was pretty clearly
> > > > > initially dynastic, though JAH quotes a letter in which she is
> > > > > referred to as 'your beloved consort'. But that couldÃ’â¬aàjust
> > > > > be good manners.Ã’â¬aàI sit somewhere in the middle. I don't buy
> > > > > the childhood sweetheart thing, after all he was only 13 and she
> > > > > about 9 when he left them. They could have grown to love and respect
> > > > > one another though. There's little doubt that Clarence adored
> > > > > Isabel, given his breakdown after her death.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aÃÂ
> > > > > HÃ’â¬aàÒâ¬a"ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > The notion that Richard was in Warwick's household between the ages of
> > > > 9 & 13 has now been generally ditched. If you read the payment to
> > > > Warwick for keeping him, it is clearly an up-front one rather than
> > > > retrospective. Also, if you trace references to Richard it is also
> > > > clear that he lived in the royal household until 1465, and from 1465
> > > > to 1468 he was in the North and missed big London occasions like the
> > > > tournament between Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy. So when he and
> > > > Anne parted company he was probably just 16, and she 12.
> > > > At any rate, his contemporaries believed that as a married man he did
> > > > not have mistresses or flings.
> > > > I know it was Rosemary Horrox who suggested Katherine Haute as
> > > > Katherine Plantagenet's mother. It may well be correct, but since we
> > > > have so little in the way of accounts for Richard's years as Duke of
> > > > Gloucester, and no Privy Purse expenses for his years as King, I am
> > > > personally reluctant to draw conclusions from patchy evidence. The
> > > > trouble is that tentative suggestions from sober historians tend to
> > > > harden into supposed fact very quickly. Idenitfying her is also a
> > > > problem - I think there may be a problem with the lady suggested as,
> > > > so far as I could see when I once had a quick search, she had not yet
> > > > married her Haute when the extant payment by Richard to Katherine
> > > > Haute was made.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:33
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but how far would a wife's tolerance go if the mistress starts
> > > > > leaving under the same roof...... And as the wife's child's nurse!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Megan Lerseth
> > > > > mailto:megan_phntmgrl%40sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mistresses seem to have been rather culturally expected at the
> > > > > > time, and he
> > > > > > seems to have taken pretty good care of Anne too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 5:51:20 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would Anne let Alice work for them? I mean if she was the mistress
> > > > > > and all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "hjnatdat"
> > > > > > mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Carol says, Katherine Haute, wife of James Haute, a relative
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >Woodvilles is mooted as the mother of his daughter Katharine -
> > > > > > >Horrox says he
> > > > > > >made payments to a Katherine Haute in the 1470s so the name gives
> > > > > > >rise to
> > > > > > >speculation. James mentions her (his wife) in his will, so she
> > > > > > >was still alive
> > > > > > >in the early 1500s and they had children.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice Burgh has been mooted as the mother of John (by Wilkinson
> > > > > > > and Weir). He
> > > > > > >made payments to her from the 1470s as 'his beloved gentlewoman'
> > > > > > >and she came
> > > > > > >from the Pontefract area. They were larger payments than those to
> > > > > > >Katherine
> > > > > > >Haute and continued into his kingship. She seems to have worked
> > > > > > >for Clarence and
> > > > > > >then him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both seem very elusive to find (there was a famous Yorkist Sir
> > > > > > > Thomas Burgh of
> > > > > > >Gainsborough and a Hugh Burgh in Yorkshire) but my searches have
> > > > > > >so far yielded
> > > > > > >nothing further. Weir says Alice had a sister Isabel, but I don't
> > > > > > >know where she
> > > > > > >got it from. It's not in Horrox. The Hautes are complicated
> > > > > > >because another, Sir
> > > > > > >Richard, also had a wife Katherine, was knighted by Richard in
> > > > > > >Scotland and then
> > > > > > >rebelled with Buckingham, was pardoned and fought for H7 at
> > > > > > >Bosworth. I continue
> > > > > > >to dig.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George
> > > > > > > Butterfield" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was many years from this date that the PIOUS
> > > > > > > > and faithful
> > > > > > > > Popes had mistresses as well as children. It would appear that
> > > > > > > > the notion of
> > > > > > > > celibacy is relatively modern.
> > > > > > > > George
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in
> > > > > > > > the Bible
> > > > > > > > verses Matthew 8:14Ò¢ââ¬a¬"15, Luke 4:38, Mark
> > > > > > > > 1:29Ò¢ââ¬a¬"31. According to Clement of
> > > > > > > > Alexandria,[2] Peter was married and had children, and his
> > > > > > > > wife was
> > > > > > > > martyred.[3] In some legends dating from at least the 6th
> > > > > > > > century, Peter's
> > > > > > > > daughter is Saint Petronilla.[4] Clement of Alexandria wrote:
> > > > > > > > "For Peter and
> > > > > > > > Philip begat children; [...] When the blessed Peter saw his
> > > > > > > > own wife led out
> > > > > > > > to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return
> > > > > > > > home, and called
> > > > > > > > to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by
> > > > > > > > name, and
> > > > > > > > saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the
> > > > > > > > blessed, and their
> > > > > > > > perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[5]
> > > > > > > > Pope St. Hormisdas (514Ò¢ââ¬a¬"523) was married and
> > > > > > > > widowed before he took Holy
> > > > > > > > Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[6]
> > > > > > > > Pope Adrian II (867Ò¢ââ¬a¬"872) was married before he took
> > > > > > > > Holy Orders,[7] to a
> > > > > > > > woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and
> > > > > > > > daughter were still
> > > > > > > > living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the
> > > > > > > > Lateran Palace.
> > > > > > > > They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius
> > > > > > > > Bibliothecarius,
> > > > > > > > the Church's chief librarian.[8]
> > > > > > > > Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope
> > > > > > > > and had three
> > > > > > > > sons, who all became priests.[9]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement IV (1265Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1268) was married, before
> > > > > > > > taking holy orders, and had
> > > > > > > > two daughters, who both entered a convent.[1
> > > > > > > > Pope Pius II (1458Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1464) had at least two
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children, one in
> > > > > > > > Strasbourg and one in Scotland, both born before he entered
> > > > > > > > the clergy, and
> > > > > > > > delayed becoming a cleric because of the requirement of
> > > > > > > > chastity.[11]
> > > > > > > > Pope Innocent VIII (1484Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1492) had two illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children during his
> > > > > > > > licentious youth, both born before he entered the clergy.[12]
> > > > > > > > According to
> > > > > > > > the 1911 EncyclopÃ’Æ'ædia Britannica, he "openly practised
> > > > > > > > nepotism in favour of
> > > > > > > > his children".[13] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his
> > > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > ambitions.[14]
> > > > > > > > Pope Clement VII (1523Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1534) had one illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders. Academic sources[who?] identify him with Alessandro
> > > > > > > > de' Medici, Duke
> > > > > > > > of Florence.[15][self-published source][16][better source
> > > > > > > > needed]
> > > > > > > > Pope Gregory XIII (1572Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1585) had an illegitimate
> > > > > > > > son before he took holy
> > > > > > > > orders
> > > > > > > > Popes sexually active or accused of being sexually active
> > > > > > > > during their
> > > > > > > > pontificate
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pope Sergius III (904Ò¢ââ¬a¬"911) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > opponents of being the
> > > > > > > > illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[23] These
> > > > > > > > accusations are
> > > > > > > > found in Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis,[24] as well as
> > > > > > > > the Liber
> > > > > > > > Pontificalis.[25][page needed] The accusations are disputed by
> > > > > > > > another early
> > > > > > > > source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894Ò¢ââ¬a¬"966): John XI
> > > > > > > > was brother of Alberic
> > > > > > > > II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband
> > > > > > > > Alberic I, so
> > > > > > > > John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I.
> > > > > > > > Bertrand Fauvarque
> > > > > > > > emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this
> > > > > > > > parenthood are
> > > > > > > > dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other
> > > > > > > > mentions of
> > > > > > > > this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of
> > > > > > > > late Pope
> > > > > > > > Formosus.[26]
> > > > > > > > Pope John X (914Ò¢ââ¬a¬"928) had romantic affairs with
> > > > > > > > both Theodora and her
> > > > > > > > daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his
> > > > > > > > Antapodosis:[27][better source needed] "The first of the popes
> > > > > > > > to be created
> > > > > > > > by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter".[citation
> > > > > > > > needed] (See also
> > > > > > > > Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope John XII (955Ò¢ââ¬a¬"963) was accused by his
> > > > > > > > adversaries of adultery and
> > > > > > > > incest.[28][29] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his
> > > > > > > > volume XXXVII that
> > > > > > > > he "liked to have a collection of women". According to
> > > > > > > > Liutprand of Cremona
> > > > > > > > in his Antapodosis,[24] "they testified about his adultery,
> > > > > > > > which they did
> > > > > > > > not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with
> > > > > > > > certainty: he had
> > > > > > > > fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his
> > > > > > > > father's concubine,
> > > > > > > > with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the
> > > > > > > > sacred palace
> > > > > > > > into a whorehouse." According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII
> > > > > > > > was "a Christian
> > > > > > > > Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by
> > > > > > > > the office he
> > > > > > > > held".[30] Some sources report that he was rumored to have
> > > > > > > > died 8 days after
> > > > > > > > being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[28]
> > > > > > > > others that he
> > > > > > > > was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of
> > > > > > > > committing
> > > > > > > > adultery.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
> > > > > > > > Pope Benedict IX (1032Ò¢ââ¬a¬" became pope in 1044, again
> > > > > > > > in 1045 and finally
> > > > > > > > 1047Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1048).[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of
> > > > > > > > Piacenza of "many vile
> > > > > > > > adulteries."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third
> > > > > > > > book of Dialogues
> > > > > > > > to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[38] His life
> > > > > > > > prompted St.
> > > > > > > > Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in
> > > > > > > > general, and
> > > > > > > > homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian
> > > > > > > > accused
> > > > > > > > Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring
> > > > > > > > orgies.[39] In
> > > > > > > > May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue
> > > > > > > > marriage.[40]
> > > > > > > > Pope Alexander VI (1492Ò¢ââ¬a¬"1503) had a long affair
> > > > > > > > with Vannozza dei
> > > > > > > > Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his illegitimate
> > > > > > > > children Cesare
> > > > > > > > and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister
> > > > > > > > of Alessandro
> > > > > > > > Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered at
> > > > > > > > least seven,
> > > > > > > > and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Carol Darling
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:37 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re; Mistresses?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > > > > > > mistresses of
> > > > > > > > Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > > > > > > gloom and
> > > > > > > > doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind
> > > > > > > > of fun,
> > > > > > > > somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief
> > > > > > > > histories of the
> > > > > > > > other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized
> > > > > > > > illegitimate children,
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > > > > > > Calais,
> > > > > > > > PomfretÒ¢ââ¬a¬Ã¦.please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 22:42:00
Marie wrote:
> Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
Carol responds:
Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Carol
> Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
Carol responds:
Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-14 23:21:29
I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
Alice
--- In , Carol Darling wrote:
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
Alice
--- In , Carol Darling wrote:
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 00:14:04
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Marie
Carol wroote:
> Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Marie replies:
You're right, this isn't what Kendall says. For once this is somewhere I agree with Hicks. If you look at the Anne Neville write-up on the Society website (click on Richard III and then choose from the menu that appears on the left side of the page) you will get the rough dates. We can't pin it down precisely. Did you notice how Kendall had to have him visiting south all the time whilst he was in Warwick's household, then missing big events like the 1467 tournament when he was - according to Kendall - living at court? All the anomalies disappear once you change the period he was in Warwick's household. The document that tells us he was is, if you read it, quite clearly an advance payment for Richard's keep, not a settlement of an outstanding bill.
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Marie
Carol wroote:
> Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Marie replies:
You're right, this isn't what Kendall says. For once this is somewhere I agree with Hicks. If you look at the Anne Neville write-up on the Society website (click on Richard III and then choose from the menu that appears on the left side of the page) you will get the rough dates. We can't pin it down precisely. Did you notice how Kendall had to have him visiting south all the time whilst he was in Warwick's household, then missing big events like the 1467 tournament when he was - according to Kendall - living at court? All the anomalies disappear once you change the period he was in Warwick's household. The document that tells us he was is, if you read it, quite clearly an advance payment for Richard's keep, not a settlement of an outstanding bill.
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 00:22:16
John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
Marie
--- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
>
> I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
>
> All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
>
> Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
>
> Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
>
> So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
>
> Alice
>
>
> --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
>
> I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
>
> All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
>
> Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
>
> Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
>
> So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
>
> Alice
>
>
> --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> >
> > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 01:19:56
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 15:21:13
I don't know whether this helps but he appears to have been in Yorkshire in February 1466, when he Warwick , Northumberland and others issued writs to the sheriff of York 'to provide jury for the trials of treason'. Doc DD/FJ/10/18/2
held in Notts Archives. He is back with Edward by spring 1469 when he's involved in the Courtenay Hungerford trials for treason. So I don't have him there when the George and Isabel planned to marry or when Cicely visited Sandwich before the wedding in Calais and he could probably have left Warwick's household for good at the end of 1468. He undoubtedly went south for major events, such as Margaret's marriage, in which Warwick played a big part.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 0:14
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Marie
Carol wroote:
> Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Marie replies:
You're right, this isn't what Kendall says. For once this is somewhere I agree with Hicks. If you look at the Anne Neville write-up on the Society website (click on Richard III and then choose from the menu that appears on the left side of the page) you will get the rough dates. We can't pin it down precisely. Did you notice how Kendall had to have him visiting south all the time whilst he was in Warwick's household, then missing big events like the 1467 tournament when he was - according to Kendall - living at court? All the anomalies disappear once you change the period he was in Warwick's household. The document that tells us he was is, if you read it, quite clearly an advance payment for Richard's keep, not a settlement of an outstanding bill.
held in Notts Archives. He is back with Edward by spring 1469 when he's involved in the Courtenay Hungerford trials for treason. So I don't have him there when the George and Isabel planned to marry or when Cicely visited Sandwich before the wedding in Calais and he could probably have left Warwick's household for good at the end of 1468. He undoubtedly went south for major events, such as Margaret's marriage, in which Warwick played a big part.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 0:14
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Just 13 when he arrived, just 16 when he left.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Marie
Carol wroote:
> Your time frame (which I don't question; I know you research everything and avoid conjectures) seems different from the one I recall from Kendall though I could be misremembering. Do you have the approximate dates? All I can gather from his age is that he would have arrived between October 2, 1465, and October 1, 1466, and left between October 2, 1468, and October 1, 1469. Was he still with Warwick when George and Isabel married in July 1469?
Marie replies:
You're right, this isn't what Kendall says. For once this is somewhere I agree with Hicks. If you look at the Anne Neville write-up on the Society website (click on Richard III and then choose from the menu that appears on the left side of the page) you will get the rough dates. We can't pin it down precisely. Did you notice how Kendall had to have him visiting south all the time whilst he was in Warwick's household, then missing big events like the 1467 tournament when he was - according to Kendall - living at court? All the anomalies disappear once you change the period he was in Warwick's household. The document that tells us he was is, if you read it, quite clearly an advance payment for Richard's keep, not a settlement of an outstanding bill.
Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 15:47:10
I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> >
> > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> >
> > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> >
> > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> >
> > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> >
> > Alice
> >
> >
> > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> >
>
Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> >
> > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> >
> > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> >
> > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> >
> > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> >
> > Alice
> >
> >
> > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > >
> > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 15:53:10
If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers H
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 17:02:26
Yes, how many remember that it was not Richard to dispatched George.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:53 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers H
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:53 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers H
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:19
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm glad someone else but me likes George despite all. I've always felt there must have been a bond between the two brothers after their exile in Utrecht, but that's just me.
Carol responds:
Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 17:08:41
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
Marie
>
> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
Marie
>
> I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
>
> "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
Marie
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > >
> > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > >
> > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > >
> > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > >
> > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > >
> > > Alice
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
Marie
>
> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
Marie
>
> I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
>
> "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
Marie
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > >
> > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > >
> > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > >
> > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > >
> > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > >
> > > Alice
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 17:12:18
Carol earlier:
> >
> > Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Marie responded:
> Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Marie. More sources that the rest of us never think of. Are they available online in English translation?
In any case, we have Richard and Anne, brought up together and led to believe that they will marry only to have Warwick ally himself with Margaret and marry Anne to Edward of Lancaster. Whatever Edward was like in person, Anne had brought up to think of him as the illegitimate son of an enemy. And Richard could not have been pleased by this development. Possibly, their reunion, once he had rescued her and placed her safely in sanctuary, caused them to fall in love. It certainly reinforced their mutual desire to marry.
Richard did state, as recorded I believe in the Mercer's records, that his death made her as sad as a man could be. I don't have time to search for his exact words, but they certainly sounded as if he were sincerely grieving.
Carol
> >
> > Wouldn't Warwick have been promoting the idea of marriage between Richard and Anne, trying to get Richard to take his side? He was certainly promoting a marriage between Isabel and George of Clarence. If so, he would have placed the idea in both their heads whether it had been there before or not (which could well have made Richard's conflicting loyalties even more painful as he witnessed the growing breach between them).
Marie responded:
> Well, yes - this is suggested by both Waurin and the Milanese State Papers. That is why, I believe, the dispensation Richard and Anne got in 1472 only covered the affinity arising from Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Warwick would almost certainly have got dispensations for both marriages whilst he was at it.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Marie. More sources that the rest of us never think of. Are they available online in English translation?
In any case, we have Richard and Anne, brought up together and led to believe that they will marry only to have Warwick ally himself with Margaret and marry Anne to Edward of Lancaster. Whatever Edward was like in person, Anne had brought up to think of him as the illegitimate son of an enemy. And Richard could not have been pleased by this development. Possibly, their reunion, once he had rescued her and placed her safely in sanctuary, caused them to fall in love. It certainly reinforced their mutual desire to marry.
Richard did state, as recorded I believe in the Mercer's records, that his death made her as sad as a man could be. I don't have time to search for his exact words, but they certainly sounded as if he were sincerely grieving.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 19:38:08
You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
>
> If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> >
> > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
>
> No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
>
> I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > >
> > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > >
> > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > >
> > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > >
> > > > Alice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
>
> If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> >
> > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
>
> No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
>
> I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > >
> > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > >
> > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > >
> > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > >
> > > > Alice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 20:12:25
Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
>
> If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> >
> > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
>
> No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
>
> I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > >
> > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > >
> > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > >
> > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > >
> > > > Alice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
>
> If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> >
> > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
>
> No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
>
> I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > >
> > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > >
> > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > >
> > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > >
> > > > Alice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 20:43:37
Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
>
> There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
>
> There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:06:32
I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:10:41
This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off" to me.
Liz
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Liz
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:17:25
Yes, I have trouble with that story - not believing it until proven. Maire.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off" to me.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:06
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off" to me.
> Â
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:06
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:19:24
Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the known.
On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:23:48
I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:36:10
Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:49:20
Perhaps there jealous?
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
break? Maire.
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
"mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
*necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
break? Maire.
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
"mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
*necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:52:43
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:54:46
Margaret Huddleston was Warwick's illegitmate daughter and was lady in waiting to Anne. So seems to have set a precedent. Though what Anne Beauchamp/Warwick thought about her we shall never know.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:56:33
Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Perhaps there jealous?
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
"mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
*necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Perhaps there jealous?
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
known.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
break? Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
"mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
*necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:57:30
Ah there's a story there for sure. Do you know any more about Margaret? Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Huddleston was Warwick's illegitmate daughter and was lady in waiting to Anne. So seems to have set a precedent. Though what Anne Beauchamp/Warwick thought about her we shall never know.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Huddleston was Warwick's illegitmate daughter and was lady in waiting to Anne. So seems to have set a precedent. Though what Anne Beauchamp/Warwick thought about her we shall never know.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:58:37
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:58:38
You forget ... You think I am the most wonderful person you have ever seen or that's the last we will see of you
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To:
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To:
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:58:51
I think so. He regarded John of Gloucester as a military and political asset, in the same way as the Earl of Lincoln.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
>
> There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
>
> There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 21:59:08
Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:01:26
No I don't. Anyone out there .........? I just have this view of Anne Beauchamp as a rather bitter lady; lost foolish husband, lost lands, over to you John Rous (when R gets killed)
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:57
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Ah there's a story there for sure. Do you know any more about Margaret? Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Margaret Huddleston was Warwick's illegitmate daughter and was lady in waiting to Anne. So seems to have set a precedent. Though what Anne Beauchamp/Warwick thought about her we shall never know.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:57
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Ah there's a story there for sure. Do you know any more about Margaret? Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Margaret Huddleston was Warwick's illegitmate daughter and was lady in waiting to Anne. So seems to have set a precedent. Though what Anne Beauchamp/Warwick thought about her we shall never know.
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:36
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:01:37
I did know that he held John in high esteem...Richard seems to have been very involved in Katherine's marriage too....Looks to me a most caring father...Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think so. He regarded John of Gloucester as a military and political asset, in the same way as the Earl of Lincoln.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think so. He regarded John of Gloucester as a military and political asset, in the same way as the Earl of Lincoln.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:02:06
The Tudors were obviously jealous of the Plantagenets' good looks. Maire.
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You forget ... You think I am the most wonderful person you have ever seen or that's the last we will see of you
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To:
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > > company.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> You forget ... You think I am the most wonderful person you have ever seen or that's the last we will see of you
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To:
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > > company.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:03:54
If history is correct, she certainly didn't age well. I love one of her imperious portraits at the NPG. I always go there and admire her regality. Did I just say something nice about a Tudor? Maire.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:04:18
Come to think of it...In her later portraits Elizabeth bears a resemblance to MB...
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:05:06
Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
________________________________
From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
________________________________
From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:05:25
I take it that Edward IV is excluded here!
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
Eileen
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > >
> > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > >
> > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > >
> > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > >
> > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > >
> > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > >
> > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > >
> > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > >
> > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > >
> > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:09:39
I've always thought Elizabeth was just like Henry Tudor and his mother in looks - that same pinched face.
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
________________________________
From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
________________________________
From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:10:24
Was she in First or Second Class that may be a clue?
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:13:58
Oh yes.......there is no comparison....:0)
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I take it that Edward IV is excluded here!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I take it that Edward IV is excluded here!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:18:50
Possibly toothache? They both had bad teeth...Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I've always thought Elizabeth was just like Henry Tudor and his mother in looks - that same pinched face.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I've always thought Elizabeth was just like Henry Tudor and his mother in looks - that same pinched face.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 22:52:12
George,
I commute into London from Colchester - like me she was in bog standard because it would cost a Queen's ransom to get a first class season ticket!
Liz
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Was she in First or Second Class that may be a clue?
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I commute into London from Colchester - like me she was in bog standard because it would cost a Queen's ransom to get a first class season ticket!
Liz
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Was she in First or Second Class that may be a clue?
G
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 23:15:55
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know whether this helps but he appears to have been in Yorkshire in February 1466, when he Warwick , Northumberland and others issued writs to the sheriff of York 'to provide jury for the trials of treason'. Doc DD/FJ/10/18/2
> held in Notts Archives. He is back with Edward by spring 1469 when he's involved in the Courtenay Hungerford trials for treason. So I don't have him there when the George and Isabel planned to marry or when Cicely visited Sandwich before the wedding in Calais and he could probably have left Warwick's household for good at the end of 1468. He undoubtedly went south for major events, such as Margaret's marriage, in which Warwick played a big part.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
>
> I don't know whether this helps but he appears to have been in Yorkshire in February 1466, when he Warwick , Northumberland and others issued writs to the sheriff of York 'to provide jury for the trials of treason'. Doc DD/FJ/10/18/2
> held in Notts Archives. He is back with Edward by spring 1469 when he's involved in the Courtenay Hungerford trials for treason. So I don't have him there when the George and Isabel planned to marry or when Cicely visited Sandwich before the wedding in Calais and he could probably have left Warwick's household for good at the end of 1468. He undoubtedly went south for major events, such as Margaret's marriage, in which Warwick played a big part.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:22:11
You do seem to have moved, actually: from inferring that Richard very probably had mistresses as a married man to saying it is unproven either way. I would be interested in your comments on his charges against Dorset et al. of adulery and leading Edward IV in bad ways - something in which every historian I've ever read detects the personal hand of Richard himself on a not very politcally-well-judged crusade.
I suspected from your comments that you had studied mainly Tudor history. I could reply that I have been studying late medieval history for 45 years and haven't read historical romances for probably 35 years because I find they're unrealistic and not well researched in the main (plus I know a bit more French than 'au contraire') - and that that clearly doesn't show to you.
Ad hominem arguments are pointless, and I imagine you will have been just as offended by mine above as I was by yours. The evidence, I repeat, is:-
1) Richard's extant statements on adultery
2) Mancini
3) the biographical details of his bastard children, which quite clearly show them to have been born before his marriage.
Against which we set - what? Your towering assumption?
Marie
P.S. In vino veritas - ~I would never have written this sober.
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
I suspected from your comments that you had studied mainly Tudor history. I could reply that I have been studying late medieval history for 45 years and haven't read historical romances for probably 35 years because I find they're unrealistic and not well researched in the main (plus I know a bit more French than 'au contraire') - and that that clearly doesn't show to you.
Ad hominem arguments are pointless, and I imagine you will have been just as offended by mine above as I was by yours. The evidence, I repeat, is:-
1) Richard's extant statements on adultery
2) Mancini
3) the biographical details of his bastard children, which quite clearly show them to have been born before his marriage.
Against which we set - what? Your towering assumption?
Marie
P.S. In vino veritas - ~I would never have written this sober.
--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
>
> I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
>
> And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
>
> If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
>
> Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> >
> > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > >
> > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> >
> > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> >
> > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > >
> > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret….please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:22:50
Her sister Mary bears a striking resemblance to Dennis Waterman.
Also, wonder where Henry VII got his good looks from?
http://www.spanglefish.com/thetudors/index.asp?pageid=184236
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:18
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Possibly toothache? They both had bad teeth...Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I've always thought Elizabeth was just like Henry Tudor and his mother in looks - that same pinched face.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: "" >
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Also, wonder where Henry VII got his good looks from?
http://www.spanglefish.com/thetudors/index.asp?pageid=184236
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:18
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Possibly toothache? They both had bad teeth...Eileen
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I've always thought Elizabeth was just like Henry Tudor and his mother in looks - that same pinched face.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: "" >
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:05
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Yes all very clever illusion - which worked for a time. Big nose. Did that come from H7? Clever, clever, clever though; have to admire her in a lot of ways. Perhaps a lot of EW and Anne Boleyn there - what a mix.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Â
>
> Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> Â
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:27:56
And remember, Henry VIII was described as having wonderful legs, the better to dance upon......that is until he drank too much and got the gout!
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:31:39
Funnily enough, both my kids loved lemons when they were babies & tots. You'd never know it to look at them now.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> > Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > Â
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> > Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > Â
> > Perhaps there jealous?
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > break? Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > appointments.
> > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > bastards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > solid data does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > probably not justified.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > more inference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > likely candidate.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > own life.
> > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > Dorset.
> > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > about?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > you started.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > company.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:33:08
I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
Marie
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think so. He regarded John of Gloucester as a military and political asset, in the same way as the Earl of Lincoln.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think so. He regarded John of Gloucester as a military and political asset, in the same way as the Earl of Lincoln.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> >
> > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> >
> > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> >
> > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> >
> > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> >
> > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> >
> > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > >
> > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > >
> > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > >
> > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > >
> > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:34:36
She does. And to Henry VII. Very Beaufort.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Come to think of it...In her later portraits Elizabeth bears a resemblance to MB...
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > Â
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > > company.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Come to think of it...In her later portraits Elizabeth bears a resemblance to MB...
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> > Â
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> > > that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> > > attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> > > statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> > > being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> > > I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> > > slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> > > Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> > > intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> > > would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> > > observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> > > *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> > > company.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> > > produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> > > for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> > > exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> > > expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> > > apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> > > been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> > > to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> > > Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> > > conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> > > discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> > > that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> > > liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> > > mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> > > gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> > > fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> > > the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> > > children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> > > Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:35:30
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:37:51
Apologies - as you may have guessed this was meant to go privately to Eileen!
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-15 23:38:55
There certainly were bastards who were acknowledged and well provided for - Margaret Huddlestone, Sir George Neville, Gwendoline Poyntz (Rivers' daughter), the Bastard of Fauconberg, Humphrey Stafford of Grafton's son William Stafford alias William Christopher, etc, etc, and I have seen at least one will of a more middle-class individual who clearly loved his bastard son very dearly and wanted him to go to university. But how many other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?
Marie
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I take it that Edward IV is excluded here!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I take it that Edward IV is excluded here!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
> Did other 15thc noblemen bring their bastard children up in the way Richard did? After all if their mother/s had brought them up I would have thought their names would have come down to us.
>
> Looks as if he took his responsibilities seriously....Rather a good egg.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard - wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a break? Maire.
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer, but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned. But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler), and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity, personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of, according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered), when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-15 23:46:48
>
> Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
Marie responds:
No, I'm afraid there is only one published itinerary, and that is the one that covers 1483-5.
An itinerary of his movements as Duke would be wonderful, but obviously it would be much patchier.
> Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
Marie responds:
No, I'm afraid there is only one published itinerary, and that is the one that covers 1483-5.
An itinerary of his movements as Duke would be wonderful, but obviously it would be much patchier.
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 00:28:43
I haven't....and I have several emails every day in my spam. I am able to release them, and denote them as trusted senders, but they still pop up.
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> ý
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:35 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> ý
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 00:29:51
Veritas........
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:37 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Apologies - as you may have guessed this was meant to go privately to Eileen!
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> ý
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:37 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Apologies - as you may have guessed this was meant to go privately to Eileen!
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> ý
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 01:40:08
"angelalice75" wrote:
> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Mancini was reporting what the English said of Richard, that nothing was known against his private life, not applying his own (Italian) standards of morality, whatever they may have been. Moreover, Richard clearly disapproved of adultery, as the penance Elizabeth Lambert ("Jane Shore") underwent indicates, as does his wish to have Bishop Russell talk Thomas Lynom out of marrying her. Adultery was a mortal sin, much worse than fornication, a venial sin that almost all unmarried men of Richard's time committed. To suggest that Richard, who disapproved of adultery, may have kept a mistress, is to suggest that he was a hypocrite. And, certainly, if his enemies could have made that charge against him, they would have done so. That they did not is strong evidence that Mancini's statement is correct.
Carol
> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
[snip]
Carol responds:
Mancini was reporting what the English said of Richard, that nothing was known against his private life, not applying his own (Italian) standards of morality, whatever they may have been. Moreover, Richard clearly disapproved of adultery, as the penance Elizabeth Lambert ("Jane Shore") underwent indicates, as does his wish to have Bishop Russell talk Thomas Lynom out of marrying her. Adultery was a mortal sin, much worse than fornication, a venial sin that almost all unmarried men of Richard's time committed. To suggest that Richard, who disapproved of adultery, may have kept a mistress, is to suggest that he was a hypocrite. And, certainly, if his enemies could have made that charge against him, they would have done so. That they did not is strong evidence that Mancini's statement is correct.
Carol
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-16 01:45:40
Carol earlier:
>
> Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
>
> I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
>
Hilary responded:
>
> If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers HÂ
Carol again:
I'm not sure where we disagree since we both think that George and Richard were close as boys and that Richard was upset at his death. As for Edward, I can understand why he imprisoned George but not why he executed him, and I suspect that Richard felt the same way but much more strongly. Can you clarify for me what we're agreeing to disagree on? I thought that I was agreeing with you.
Carol
>
> Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
>
> I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
>
Hilary responded:
>
> If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers HÂ
Carol again:
I'm not sure where we disagree since we both think that George and Richard were close as boys and that Richard was upset at his death. As for Edward, I can understand why he imprisoned George but not why he executed him, and I suspect that Richard felt the same way but much more strongly. Can you clarify for me what we're agreeing to disagree on? I thought that I was agreeing with you.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 03:12:18
Then if she was in bog standard she defiantly was not Q1
QED
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:52 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> George,
>
> I commute into London from Colchester - like me she was in bog standard because it would cost a Queen's ransom to get a first class season ticket!
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Was she in First or Second Class that may be a clue?
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's m
QED
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:52 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> George,
>
> I commute into London from Colchester - like me she was in bog standard because it would cost a Queen's ransom to get a first class season ticket!
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
> Was she in First or Second Class that may be a clue?
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth I? I saw opposite a woman on the train yesterday - she was in her 50s i guess, red hair (dyed - it was too bright ot be natural) pale face and really red red lipstick. I felt like asking her "are you Elizabeth I?"
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mairemulholland mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> >
> >
> > Well, if you only had to admire Henry VII's wizened little face and Henry VIII's thuggish fat face, you'd be jealous, too. Although, I do think Elizabeth in her youth was wonderful-looking. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "George Butterfield" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps there jealous?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> > > must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> > > could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> > > Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> > > known.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> > > that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> > > amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> > > wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> > > break? Maire.
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> > > Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> > > dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> > > have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> > > if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> > > appointments.
> > > > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> > > arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> > > illegitimate nieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> > > "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> > > machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> > > but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> > > bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> > > medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> > > years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> > > monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> > > even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> > > solid data does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> > > but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> > > towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> > > solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> > > probably not justified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> > > administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> > > responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> > > a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> > > concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> > > more inference?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> > > or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> > > him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> > > But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> > > tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> > > mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> > > likely candidate.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> > > but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> > > his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> > > especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> > > comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> > > meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> > > necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> > > circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> > > denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> > > been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> > > own life.
> > > > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> > > expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> > > considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> > > always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> > > just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> > > of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> > > okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> > > couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> > > the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> > > papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> > > questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> > > before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> > > succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> > > and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> > > Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> > > King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> > > almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> > > end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> > > Dorset.
> > > > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> > > illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> > > exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> > > often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> > > less likely to play the field.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> > > conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> > > for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> > > marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> > > about?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> > > dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> > > Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> > > girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> > > suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> > > Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> > > more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> > > man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> > > personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> > > younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> > > received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> > > according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> > > when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> > > was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> > > known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> > > time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> > > you started.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> > > records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> > > conceived before Richard's m
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 03:56:15
Marie wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
> Marie
Carol responds:
I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
Carol
>
> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
> Marie
Carol responds:
I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 04:01:25
Marie wrote:
> [snip] But how many other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?
Carol responds:
Considering how he "cared for" poor Edward of Warwick, whom Edward IV made Dorset's ward after George's execution, I don't even want to think about how he would have treated his illegitimate children!
Carol
> [snip] But how many other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?
Carol responds:
Considering how he "cared for" poor Edward of Warwick, whom Edward IV made Dorset's ward after George's execution, I don't even want to think about how he would have treated his illegitimate children!
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 06:04:28
liz williams wrote:
"This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
to me."
This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
immense.
Doug
"This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
to me."
This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
immense.
Doug
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 06:24:05
Marie wrote:
"There certainly were bastards who were acknowledged and well provided for -
Margaret Huddlestone, Sir George Neville, Gwendoline Poyntz (Rivers'
daughter), the Bastard of Fauconberg, Humphrey Stafford of Grafton's son
William Stafford alias William Christopher, etc, etc, and I have seen at
least one will of a more middle-class individual who clearly loved his
bastard son very dearly and wanted him to go to university. But how many
other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we
know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly
promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?"
Doug here:
And how many of those illegitimate children were fathered before the man
married? How many were the result of liaisons after the death of a wife and
before marriage to another wife (if any)?
To me it seems fairly obvious that Richard recognized a difference between
fathering a child or having a liaison PRIOR to marriage was a different
matter than doing so WHILE being married.* For one thing, there were those
pesky wedding vows...
Doug
*I don't mean that in a "boys will be boys" way, but rather that there were
failings that MIGHT be excused due to youth, but no longer were once was an
adult and married.
"There certainly were bastards who were acknowledged and well provided for -
Margaret Huddlestone, Sir George Neville, Gwendoline Poyntz (Rivers'
daughter), the Bastard of Fauconberg, Humphrey Stafford of Grafton's son
William Stafford alias William Christopher, etc, etc, and I have seen at
least one will of a more middle-class individual who clearly loved his
bastard son very dearly and wanted him to go to university. But how many
other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we
know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly
promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?"
Doug here:
And how many of those illegitimate children were fathered before the man
married? How many were the result of liaisons after the death of a wife and
before marriage to another wife (if any)?
To me it seems fairly obvious that Richard recognized a difference between
fathering a child or having a liaison PRIOR to marriage was a different
matter than doing so WHILE being married.* For one thing, there were those
pesky wedding vows...
Doug
*I don't mean that in a "boys will be boys" way, but rather that there were
failings that MIGHT be excused due to youth, but no longer were once was an
adult and married.
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-16 10:02:18
I think all you can do is search through the archives as more and more go online. But it's not helped by poor search facilities which don't let you wildcard names when they have been spelled differently, as they often are. It can become very tedious and if you can't guess an unusual name spelling you can easily miss some.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:46
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
Marie responds:
No, I'm afraid there is only one published itinerary, and that is the one that covers 1483-5.
An itinerary of his movements as Duke would be wonderful, but obviously it would be much patchier.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:46
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
>
> Thanks, Hilary. That does help. I'll bookmark your post for future reference. BTW, I know that itineraries have been published of Richard's movements as protector and king. Does anyone know of anything similar for his time as Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
Marie responds:
No, I'm afraid there is only one published itinerary, and that is the one that covers 1483-5.
An itinerary of his movements as Duke would be wonderful, but obviously it would be much patchier.
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-02-16 10:13:56
Email indigestion Carol I misread the middle of your last sentence and the questionmark. I apologise, we agree, we agree. By the way, I'd never thought of it till now but you can understand people's confusion over the function of the Tower. In the Princes story we are keen to say it was 'only' a royal residence, but then people like George and Stillington were also bunged up in it. Not quite the same as Whitehall or Greenwich.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 1:45
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Carol earlier:
>
> Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
>
> I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
>
Hilary responded:
>
> If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers HÂ
Carol again:
I'm not sure where we disagree since we both think that George and Richard were close as boys and that Richard was upset at his death. As for Edward, I can understand why he imprisoned George but not why he executed him, and I suspect that Richard felt the same way but much more strongly. Can you clarify for me what we're agreeing to disagree on? I thought that I was agreeing with you.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 1:45
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
Carol earlier:
>
> Also, George and Richard were closer in age than either was to Edward and Edmund (who appear to have been close to each other based on a pair of letters written to their father when they were boys). George and Richard may also have been close to Margaret, who remained unmarried longer than most girls of her rank.
>
> I agree with you that they were probably close up to the time that they were separated, evidently when Richard was thirteen and George sixteen, which is later than I had thought. That would account for Richard's anger and distress when George was executed. Put in the Tower, yes. He deserved it several times over. But executed by his own older brother? No wonder Richard stayed in the North after that.
>
Hilary responded:
>
> If it was this century he'd probably have been given pyschological help. I still like George, despite all. And a guy who can execute his own brother? How many forget that when they go on about Richard and nephews. We agree to disagree and I forgive you for confusing me with another. Cheers HÂ
Carol again:
I'm not sure where we disagree since we both think that George and Richard were close as boys and that Richard was upset at his death. As for Edward, I can understand why he imprisoned George but not why he executed him, and I suspect that Richard felt the same way but much more strongly. Can you clarify for me what we're agreeing to disagree on? I thought that I was agreeing with you.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 11:34:00
Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English
said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
Paul
On 16/02/2013 01:40, justcarol67 wrote:
> "angelalice75" wrote:
>
>> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Mancini was reporting what the English said of Richard, that nothing was known against his private life, not applying his own (Italian) standards of morality, whatever they may have been. Moreover, Richard clearly disapproved of adultery, as the penance Elizabeth Lambert ("Jane Shore") underwent indicates, as does his wish to have Bishop Russell talk Thomas Lynom out of marrying her. Adultery was a mortal sin, much worse than fornication, a venial sin that almost all unmarried men of Richard's time committed. To suggest that Richard, who disapproved of adultery, may have kept a mistress, is to suggest that he was a hypocrite. And, certainly, if his enemies could have made that charge against him, they would have done so. That they did not is strong evidence that Mancini's statement is correct.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
Paul
On 16/02/2013 01:40, justcarol67 wrote:
> "angelalice75" wrote:
>
>> Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife, but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men, especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Mancini was reporting what the English said of Richard, that nothing was known against his private life, not applying his own (Italian) standards of morality, whatever they may have been. Moreover, Richard clearly disapproved of adultery, as the penance Elizabeth Lambert ("Jane Shore") underwent indicates, as does his wish to have Bishop Russell talk Thomas Lynom out of marrying her. Adultery was a mortal sin, much worse than fornication, a venial sin that almost all unmarried men of Richard's time committed. To suggest that Richard, who disapproved of adultery, may have kept a mistress, is to suggest that he was a hypocrite. And, certainly, if his enemies could have made that charge against him, they would have done so. That they did not is strong evidence that Mancini's statement is correct.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 12:01:10
I think mine was more in-vino-not-checking-who-you-are-replying-to!
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 0:29
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Veritas........
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:37 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Apologies - as you may have guessed this was meant to go privately to Eileen!
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 0:29
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Veritas........
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:37 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Apologies - as you may have guessed this was meant to go privately to Eileen!
Also I'm afraid "in vino" something or other ....
________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
More than one lemon.
Tudor gremlins are working overtime - for the last two days every single one of your posts (not the one you sent privately but those to the forum) has gone straight into my Spam folder!
Have you seen Marie's reply to our "new poster"! - priceless!
________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
Whom do you speak of? He who looks as if he was weaned on a lemon?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course they're jealous, he's much better looking than you-know-who
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 21:47
> Subject: RE: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
> Perhaps there jealous?
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:24 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> I've noticed they are very quiet about the reconstruction of his face. They
> must be privately steaming over that bonny lad! Maire.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Or that he wasn't so repulsive, with a hunchback and withered arm, yet
> could engage in sexual congress willy nilly...... Those who disparage
> Richard III, need to make sure they do not trip over the facts, or the
> known.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "mairemulholland" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we can assume something about Richard's character from the fact
> that he acknowledged these two children and provided for them. It's somewhat
> amusing that people are always trying to find other bastards for Richard -
> wouldn't that just prove he was a lying hypocrite, lol! Will he ever catch a
> break? Maire.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen...am I correct in that I believe John and Katherine lived at
> Sheriff Hutton..of course one of Richard's homes...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard's marriage is likely to have taken place in 1472 after the
> dispensation came through. His known illegitimate children are likely to
> have been born, or at least conceived, by then because:
> > > > 1) John of Gloucester was Captain of Calais by 1485, which is unlikely
> if he were a minor as Richard strongly considered military merit when making
> appointments.
> > > > 2) Katherine was married by 1485 and Richard is unlikely to have
> arranged this at a very early age, judging by his treatment of his
> illegitimate nieces.
> > > >
> > > > There are no other known bastards or mistresses, given that a
> "mistress" is the additional partner of a married man. The Tydder propaganda
> machine had 118 years to furnish him with such relationships posthumously
> but failed, despite it's other inventions.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: angelalice75
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really don't need to "get me started" as I've been studying
> medieval and Tudor history, especially social history, for the past thirty
> years. I'm sorry if that's not obvious from my comments :)
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your argument for why Richard *might* have been unusually
> monogamous during his marriage. It's reasonable and cogent, and it might
> even be true. But it doesn't amount to anything like proof or even very
> solid data does it?
> > > >
> > > > And that's my point - NOT that Richard was definitely an adulterer,
> but that we simply don't know enough to say either way, and that building a
> towering edifice of assumption about his faithful and happy marriage, based
> solely on Mancini and an absence of reciprocal accusation from Dorset, is
> probably not justified.
> > > >
> > > > If you can discern that Richard, personally, (as opposed to his
> administration) had a problem with a "high-handed attitude to social
> responsibility on the part of the nobility," and that this problem included
> a personal distaste for the fathering of bastards by a married man - then I
> concede you do have a point. But can this be done without recourse to even
> more inference?
> > > >
> > > > Please don't think I am some anti-Ricardian trying to blacken the man
> or prove he was some kind of hypocrite or adulterer. Au contraire, I find
> him fascinating and am very open to the possibility he has been maligned.
> But the slightly loose-boundaried way that Ricardianism can sometimes become
> tinged with historical romance worries me.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not attributing kept women to anyone!
> > > > > Well, in the sense that you are arguing that Richard probably kept
> mistresses because "everyone did", you are. I just can't imagine a less
> likely candidate.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course Richard *may* have been entirely faithful to his wife,
> but we can't read Mancini as saying that, because Mancini is writing within
> his own contemporary mores when concepts of marital fidelity - for men,
> especially wealthy, powerful men - were not the same as now. Mancini's
> comment about the respectability of Richard's private life can be read as
> meaning he was not excessive or debauched, but it can't be read as
> necessarily suggesting absolute marital fidelity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mancini were all we have to go on, we would have to be more
> circumspect, but we have other clues, such as Richard's repeated
> denouncement of Dorset et al as adulterers - a complaint that would have
> been leapt on by his enemies if he had the slightest irregularities in his
> own life.
> > > > > Also, I would question your claim that wealthy, powerful men were
> expected to have mistresses, or whether a cleric like Mancini would have
> considered adultery in the way you suggest.
> > > > > Many married noblemen did have mistresses - people at the top will
> always have the ability to indulge themselves if they want to. But this was
> just the sort of high-handed attitude to social responsibility on the part
> of the nobility that Richard was opposed to. That adultery was regarded as
> okay as long as it wasn't too promiscuous I would question. For instance, a
> couple who had committed adultery were barred from marrying each other after
> the death(s) of their spouse(s) - Gaunt and Katherine Swynford had to get a
> papal dispensation to marry because of his adultery with her, and it is
> questionable whether a less powerful individual would have been granted one.
> > > > > I suggest you look at Edward IV's case. The evidence suggests that
> before Elizabeth Woodville he had had two mistresses in fairly rapid
> succession but nevertheless one at a time (Lady Lucy and Eleanor Butler),
> and he confined himself to widows. After he announced his marriage to
> Elizabeth Woodville we hear of no more mistresses until he seduced Mistress
> Shore seemingly in about 1476. She was already married, so responded to the
> King's advances by getting an annulment. Arthur Wayte's mother (who was
> almost certainly not Lady Lucy) seems to have been with Edward almost at the
> end of his life, when Mistress Shore may already have moved on to Marquess
> Dorset.
> > > > > With all the trouble caused by accusations of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy, I think that Richard may well have grown up with an almost
> exaggerated sense of the social disruption that adultery could cause.
> > > > > My own impression, looking at records, is that young unmarried men
> often fathered children, but that once they were married they were much much
> less likely to play the field.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see a tendency to make too many and too extreme assumptions is
> all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You say John and Katherine were both of an age to have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage? I thought there were no dates available
> for the birth of either, and the claim they were both born before his
> marriage was based on the same over-interpretation of Mancini I'm talking
> about?"
> > > > >
> > > > > No, and I am not over-interpreting Mancini, thanks. There are no
> dates available for the birth of either child, obviously, but:-
> > > > > 1) Katherine seems to have consummated her marriage to the Earl of
> Huntingdon in or shortly before May 1484. It was highly unusual for English
> girls to be allowed to consummate their marriages before they were 14, which
> suggests she was born in the first half of 1470.
> > > > > 2) John of Gloucester was appointed Captain of Calais during
> Richard's reign, and although he was probably expected to take advice from
> more experienced councillors to begin with, it does suggest he was a young
> man by the standards of the day. After Bosworth John was given an annuity,
> personally. This contrasts with children such as Buckingham and Edward IV's
> younger daughters, who were kept by Margaret Beaufort, and it was she who
> received the money for their upkeep.
> > > > > 3) As regards whether there were younger bastards we don't know of,
> according to Perkin Warbeck's confession (not Vergil, as I had remembered),
> when he arrived in Cork in 1491 he was asked, amongst other things, if he
> was "King Richard's bastard son", which strongly suggests there was only one
> known bastard son of Richard's - ie John.
> > > > >
> > > > > I obviously can't keep writing these posts as checkig the details is
> time-consuming, but if you like I can recommend you some books, etc, to get
> you started.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John and Katherine are the only bastards of Richard's in the
> records, and they were both of an age that means they must have been
> conceived before Richard's marriage. A reference in Vergil seems to confirm
> that John was Richard's only bastard son. I'm a bit bewildered - why
> attribute kept women to a person when none are known? Richard made enough
> statements against adultery - not just excess - and no one ever said he was
> being hypocritial in doing so.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , "angelalice75" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but
> I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to
> slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms.
> Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the
> intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen
> would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the
> observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't
> *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's
> company.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and
> produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared
> for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's
> exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on
> it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost
> expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really
> apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have
> been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it
> to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means
> Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all
> conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and
> discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but
> that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief
> liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> , Carol Darling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed
> mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the
> gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of
> fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of
> the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate
> children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments,
> Calais, Pomfret..please clear this ups. Carol D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 15:13:31
Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Marie wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
> Marie
Carol responds:
I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
Carol
On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Marie wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
> Marie
Carol responds:
I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and hisbastards
2013-02-16 15:52:31
PlayBOOK, not Palyboy!
On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:13 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
>> Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
>
> The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:13 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there's any evidence where they lived, at least until Katherine married Huntingdon and John was sent over to Calais.
>> Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought that Katherine spent a short time at Nottingham before her marriage. Not sure where I read that, but it wasn't a novel.
>
> The idea that John and Katherine might have lived at Sheriff Hutton probably comes from the reference to "the children at one breakfast," which has also been cited as possible evidence that Edward's sons were there. But if the were, say, fourteen through sixteen, they probably wouldn't be referred to as children. I don't think they could have been much older or Richard would have been too young to father them and you've already cited the evidence, which I agree with, that they could not be much younger as they were clearly born (or at least conceived) before Richard's marriage.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 16:02:36
Douglas, that had occurred to me too but then If (and it's a massive if) he was one of the boys, where had he been for the intervening years? ~(Rhetorical question of course)
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
liz williams wrote:
"This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
to me."
This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
immense.
Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
liz williams wrote:
"This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
to me."
This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
immense.
Doug
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 16:15:57
[Loftily.] If that were the case, it could never be addressed at any inhabitant of THIS forum!
There are a couple of historical periods in which events went so fast, and are so sparsely documented, and occurred in circumstances so different from ours, that it's an act of intellectual bravery just to tackle a cursory understanding. The Wars of the Roses are a good example. The big points, like exactly what the Duke of Clarence or Lord Hastings finally did or said to merit execution, are recorded only in legend or in scattered, disconnected documentation. No wonder there are relatively few Ricardians, compared with Tudor fans. It's enough to make you turn to accumulating baseball statistics in self-preservation.
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
There are a couple of historical periods in which events went so fast, and are so sparsely documented, and occurred in circumstances so different from ours, that it's an act of intellectual bravery just to tackle a cursory understanding. The Wars of the Roses are a good example. The big points, like exactly what the Duke of Clarence or Lord Hastings finally did or said to merit execution, are recorded only in legend or in scattered, disconnected documentation. No wonder there are relatively few Ricardians, compared with Tudor fans. It's enough to make you turn to accumulating baseball statistics in self-preservation.
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 16:37:22
"Safe" would be my answer.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Douglas, that had occurred to me too but then If (and it's a massive if) he was one of the boys, where had he been for the intervening years? ~(Rhetorical question of course)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
> acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
> to me."
>
> This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
> Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
> true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
> either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
> As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
> would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
> assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
> immense.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Douglas, that had occurred to me too but then If (and it's a massive if) he was one of the boys, where had he been for the intervening years? ~(Rhetorical question of course)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
> Â
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
> acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit "off"
> to me."
>
> This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard of
> Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should be
> true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
> either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
> As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
> would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would have
> assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
> immense.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 16:40:58
Top be fair to Dorset, the charge that he abused Warwick has no basis.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
> > [snip] But how many other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Considering how he "cared for" poor Edward of Warwick, whom Edward IV made Dorset's ward after George's execution, I don't even want to think about how he would have treated his illegitimate children!
>
> Carol
>
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
> > [snip] But how many other men didn't bother to acknowledge their byblows we'll never know. Do we know of any fathered by Dorset, for instance, given that he was reputedly promiscuous and clearly capable of fathering children?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Considering how he "cared for" poor Edward of Warwick, whom Edward IV made Dorset's ward after George's execution, I don't even want to think about how he would have treated his illegitimate children!
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 17:11:33
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
Carol responds:
I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
Carol
>
> Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
Carol responds:
I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 17:19:36
liz williams wrote:
:Douglas, that had occurred to me too but then If (and it's a massive if)
he was one of the boys, where had he been for the intervening years?Â
~(Rhetorical question of course)"
mcjohn replied:
"Safe" would be my answer."
Doug replies to both:
That's basically as far as I've ever gotten. The best I can come up with is
that Edward was so traumatized(?) by the events of 1483-4 that, given the
chance to chuck it all, he went for it.
If Richard of Eastwell was indeed Edward and he spent his last 30+ years in
Eastwell, there's still the question of where was he BEFORE then. Stone
masons traveled around, didn't they? Perhaps he just made certain that his
(Richard/Edward/whoever) travels kept him away from the larger centers of
population, thus reducing his chance of being recognized.
As long as he stayed a "commoner" and out of politics, he'd most likely
remain unnoticed - and, as mcjohn said, safe.
Doug
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
>
> Â
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
> acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit
> "off"
> to me."
>
> This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard
> of
> Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should
> be
> true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
> either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
> As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
> would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would
> have
> assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
> immense.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
:Douglas, that had occurred to me too but then If (and it's a massive if)
he was one of the boys, where had he been for the intervening years?Â
~(Rhetorical question of course)"
mcjohn replied:
"Safe" would be my answer."
Doug replies to both:
That's basically as far as I've ever gotten. The best I can come up with is
that Edward was so traumatized(?) by the events of 1483-4 that, given the
chance to chuck it all, he went for it.
If Richard of Eastwell was indeed Edward and he spent his last 30+ years in
Eastwell, there's still the question of where was he BEFORE then. Stone
masons traveled around, didn't they? Perhaps he just made certain that his
(Richard/Edward/whoever) travels kept him away from the larger centers of
population, thus reducing his chance of being recognized.
As long as he stayed a "commoner" and out of politics, he'd most likely
remain unnoticed - and, as mcjohn said, safe.
Doug
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 7:07
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his
> bastards
>
> Â
>
> liz williams wrote:
>
> "This is why I find the Richard of Eastwell thing unconvincing. If he
> acknowledged two of his children, why not a third? It just seems a bit
> "off"
> to me."
>
> This is only my personal opinion but, IF the story related about Richard
> of
> Eastwell being taken to see Richard immediately prior to Bosworth should
> be
> true, then I can only think of two possibilities for his identity: he was
> either Richard's nephew Edward or his nephew Richard.
> As I tend to think "Perkin" WAS Richard's nephew of the same name, that
> would leave Edward as the only possible alternative. As to why he would
> have
> assumed the name he did, I really wouldn't know; the possibilities are
> immense.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 17:56:21
Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
Carol responds:
There is actually a book called "Medieval History for Dummies" which covers the sixth through sixteenth centuries. Unfortunately, IIRC, it takes the traditional view of Richard.
Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour"? Aside from being enjoyable in itself (and reasonably faithful to Kendall's biography), it will help you to keep track of who is who and the changing titles (for example, John Neville goes from Lord Montagu to Earl of Northumberland to a very dissatisfied Marquis of Montagu). It *is* confusing to have people called by their (partial) titles rather than their names, and the repeated names (especially Edward, Richard, Elizabeth, and Margaret) don't help either. There were even two Georges (Clarence and his priestly cousin, George Neville), but I don't think that anyone would confuse those two. But, as I said, Penman's book should help to unconfuse you.
Did you mean a play-by-play rather than a playboy? Love those spelling checkers.
Carol
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
Carol responds:
There is actually a book called "Medieval History for Dummies" which covers the sixth through sixteenth centuries. Unfortunately, IIRC, it takes the traditional view of Richard.
Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour"? Aside from being enjoyable in itself (and reasonably faithful to Kendall's biography), it will help you to keep track of who is who and the changing titles (for example, John Neville goes from Lord Montagu to Earl of Northumberland to a very dissatisfied Marquis of Montagu). It *is* confusing to have people called by their (partial) titles rather than their names, and the repeated names (especially Edward, Richard, Elizabeth, and Margaret) don't help either. There were even two Georges (Clarence and his priestly cousin, George Neville), but I don't think that anyone would confuse those two. But, as I said, Penman's book should help to unconfuse you.
Did you mean a play-by-play rather than a playboy? Love those spelling checkers.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 18:42:36
Carol I am about half way through "The Sunne in Splendour", which will make my third reading of it. "The Road to Bosworth" came yesterday, and the "Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England", all fascinating. I shall have to retire ASAP, to finish the current stack, and more are coming. I am just muddling along, and making my own play book, name, title(s) and nickname guide, and have a crude map of where everything is and/or was. Just so much to squeeze into this empty head....... I would imagine the next few years will be filled with new works, or re-released works, which I hope show a kinder and truer vision of King Richard III. As a bibliophile, that gives me great pleasure. I will be one of those little old ladies with 12 cats, and books stacked to the rafters!
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
Carol responds:
There is actually a book called "Medieval History for Dummies" which covers the sixth through sixteenth centuries. Unfortunately, IIRC, it takes the traditional view of Richard.
Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour"? Aside from being enjoyable in itself (and reasonably faithful to Kendall's biography), it will help you to keep track of who is who and the changing titles (for example, John Neville goes from Lord Montagu to Earl of Northumberland to a very dissatisfied Marquis of Montagu). It *is* confusing to have people called by their (partial) titles rather than their names, and the repeated names (especially Edward, Richard, Elizabeth, and Margaret) don't help either. There were even two Georges (Clarence and his priestly cousin, George Neville), but I don't think that anyone would confuse those two. But, as I said, Penman's book should help to unconfuse you.
Did you mean a play-by-play rather than a playboy? Love those spelling checkers.
Carol
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Stating my reading anew, I feel like I need a playboy, time line, and geographic map. This is kind of like a Russian novel, we use the given name, the nickname, the title(s) which change, and then I get confused again. However, I think I am easily confused!!!!!! But, that would be a fun book - the History of the War of the Roses for Dummies!
Carol responds:
There is actually a book called "Medieval History for Dummies" which covers the sixth through sixteenth centuries. Unfortunately, IIRC, it takes the traditional view of Richard.
Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour"? Aside from being enjoyable in itself (and reasonably faithful to Kendall's biography), it will help you to keep track of who is who and the changing titles (for example, John Neville goes from Lord Montagu to Earl of Northumberland to a very dissatisfied Marquis of Montagu). It *is* confusing to have people called by their (partial) titles rather than their names, and the repeated names (especially Edward, Richard, Elizabeth, and Margaret) don't help either. There were even two Georges (Clarence and his priestly cousin, George Neville), but I don't think that anyone would confuse those two. But, as I said, Penman's book should help to unconfuse you.
Did you mean a play-by-play rather than a playboy? Love those spelling checkers.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 20:48:08
You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French) sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I can't recall his exact role offhand).
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>
> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>
> Carol
>
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>
> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 21:51:28
Well that makes sense and would explain the education.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French) sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I can't recall his exact role offhand).
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his
private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>
> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>
> Carol
>
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French) sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I can't recall his exact role offhand).
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his
private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>
> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-16 23:37:58
Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Carol I am about half way through "The Sunne in Splendour", which will make my third reading of it. "The Road to Bosworth" came yesterday, and the "Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England", all fascinating. [snip]
Carol responds:
What a coincidence as my copy of "Road to Bosworth" arrived today. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but this would be a good time. If Penman can't help you keep track of who's who, I guess your own notes are the only option. Maybe the best one, actually, since writing stuff down helps us to remember.
Got to rescue some pasta before it's overcooked.
Carol
>
> Carol I am about half way through "The Sunne in Splendour", which will make my third reading of it. "The Road to Bosworth" came yesterday, and the "Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England", all fascinating. [snip]
Carol responds:
What a coincidence as my copy of "Road to Bosworth" arrived today. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but this would be a good time. If Penman can't help you keep track of who's who, I guess your own notes are the only option. Maybe the best one, actually, since writing stuff down helps us to remember.
Got to rescue some pasta before it's overcooked.
Carol
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-17 03:57:17
Regarding single sons of the nobility siring bastard children before marriage...even these days it's required procedure to mate a pedigreed stallion to a common test mare to prove said stallion's ability. This, before letting him mount pedigreed mares, and charging the mare's owners dearly for the service.
Just sayin'....
~Wednesday
Just sayin'....
~Wednesday
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-17 15:11:17
Stone & Stanleys :- Though of later date, at the dissolution, Burscough Priory, a 'Mausoleum' to several generations of Stanleys, was TOTALLY destroyed and virtually wiped off the map. Both STONE & Bells were transported to nearby Ormskirk, together with the bodies & stone effigies of the 1st & 3rd Earls of Derby [Kings/Lords of Man [Isle of] to build the new tower & the 'Derby Chapel' therin.
Kind Regards,
Arthur Wright.
>________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 21:51
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>Well that makes sense and would explain the education.
>
>________________________________
>From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French) sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I can't recall his exact role offhand).
>It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
>Marie
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> >
>> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his
>private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>>
>> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kind Regards,
Arthur Wright.
>________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 21:51
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>
>Well that makes sense and would explain the education.
>
>________________________________
>From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
>
>
>You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French) sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I can't recall his exact role offhand).
>It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard.
>Marie
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> >
>> > Careful now Carol. Mancini was reporting what HE WAS TOLD the English said, via churchmen who spoke Latin, as he could not communicate in English.
>>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I know that, Paul. (Can you watch your tone, please? I know we're all up to our necks in posts, but you seem uncharacteristically testy lately and perhaps you didn't read my post carefully.) I was making a different point, that Mancini was not applying his own Italian moral standards to Richard. But actually you're reinforcing the main point, which is Richard's reputation for clean living. If *churchmen,* some of them hostile to Richard, said that he had earned respect and affection through his reputation for a spotless private life, he must have really had that reputation and they must have believed it. If they had heard even the slightest rumor that he had committed adultery or had a mistress after his marriage, they would have reported it to Mancini. He was probably talking to Rotherham and Morton, among others, and as we both know, they were hostile to Richard. Mancini actually says (I don't have the original Latin), "The good reputation of his
>private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers." That remark, coming from clerics, shows quite clearly that these clerics, whatever they thought of him as Protector, not only knew about but approved of his private life (as they would not have approved of Edward's) and his activities as a public benefactor.
>>
>> In other words, we have an Italian spy reporting back to a French spy ring that Richard had a spotless reputation--as reported by clerics who would not have approved of adultery. So I'm not clear what your point was or why you would chide me for not mentioning something that I obviously know.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's marriage and his bastards
2013-02-17 15:20:58
Marie wrote:
"You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any
truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the
late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then
scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French)
sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit
to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having
been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I
can't recall his exact role offhand).
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic
to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard."
Doug here:
Sorry to say that idea never crossed my mind! And the timing of his
appearance would fit, too. However...being a monk, or even a lay brother,
wouldn't automatically rule out "Richard" being Edward, just make the story
that much more complicated to unravel! Oh well, perhaps some day someone
will come across the records of some dissolved monastery or abbey and then
we'll have ANOTHER mystery on our hands trying to trace the mysterious
"Brother Richard"! Is he or isn't he...
As you say though, it all comes down to whether or not the whole story is
even true, so I guess right now the "monk" hyposthesis best fits if it is.
Darn!
Doug
"You know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, assuming there is any
truth in the stonemason story at all? This was first suggested to me by the
late lamented Lesley Wynne Davies. An old man working as a builder and then
scuttling off on his own to read Latin (as opposed to English or French)
sounds for all the world like an ex monk. He probably wouldn't want to admit
to Myole that this was the case because Moyle was so hostil to monks, having
been a big mover and shaker in the Dissolution of the monasteries (sorry, I
can't recall his exact role offhand).
It occurred to me since that he may have thought Moyle would be sympathetic
to a son of King Richard as the family had been supporters of Richard."
Doug here:
Sorry to say that idea never crossed my mind! And the timing of his
appearance would fit, too. However...being a monk, or even a lay brother,
wouldn't automatically rule out "Richard" being Edward, just make the story
that much more complicated to unravel! Oh well, perhaps some day someone
will come across the records of some dissolved monastery or abbey and then
we'll have ANOTHER mystery on our hands trying to trace the mysterious
"Brother Richard"! Is he or isn't he...
As you say though, it all comes down to whether or not the whole story is
even true, so I guess right now the "monk" hyposthesis best fits if it is.
Darn!
Doug
Re: Re; Mistresses?
2013-03-13 20:46:38
I was in bath today. There was a wonderful silk tapestry of the kings of England and under the Plantagenets richard wasn't there. The abbey also had Wiesal in prime place even though his fat, evil tyrant son dissolved the monastries. I was devastated but can't remember if John was also there. Do we have selective kings now ????
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone
-----Original Message-----
From: "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...>
Sender:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:21:28
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
Alice
--- In , Carol Darling wrote:
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfretý.please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone
-----Original Message-----
From: "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...>
Sender:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:21:28
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re; Mistresses?
I'm new here and don't want to start off on a wrong note, but I think in some ways to talk in terms of "happy marriage" at all is to slightly misrepresent Medieval marriage and restyle it on modern terms. Marriage for the nobility in those days didn't imply anything like the intimacy it does today. Physically, a Duke and Duchess or King and Queen would have lived very separately even when under the same roof, so even the observation that Anne accompanied Richard on progress etc. doesn't *necessarily* imply they were living closely or seeking each other's company.
All we know about Richard's marriage is that it happened and produced one child, anything else is speculation. Maybe they liked or cared for each other. Maybe they were indifferent or worse. We simply don't know.
Also, I think we need to put Mancini's comment about Richard's exemplary private life in context and not make too many assumptions based on it.
Mancini is writing at a time when high born men were almost expected to have mistresses, and modern ideas of fidelity didn't really apply. A king who had a wife and a lady or two on the side would still have been considered exemplary by his contemporaries. It was only when he took it to excess - like Edward IV - that disapproval set in.
So, I don't think we can assume that Mancini's comment means Richard was strictly faithful to Anne, or that his bastards were all conceived before marriage. All we can infer is that he was moderate and discreet in his sexual behaviour, as befitted the mores of the time - but that could easily have included keeping a mistress, or indulging in brief liaisons here and there, in fact such would have been almost expected.
Alice
--- In , Carol Darling wrote:
>
> Re Mistresses: Can someone please list the actual or assumed mistresses of Richard? I thought he was a pious, faithful man. With all the gloom and doom in his life, I admit the occasional mention of some kind of fun, somewhere, makes me smile. What are the names and brief histories of the other ladies? And their relation to his 2 recognized illegitimate children, John and Katherine? John is also given different attachments, Calais, Pomfretý.please clear this ups. Carol D.
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.