Exceptionally good article

The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html

True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.

Carol

Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
 
It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 23:58
Subject: Exceptionally good article

 
The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html

True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.

Carol

Carol earlier: 
> The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
>
> True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.

Liz responded:
>
> Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?

> It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
>
Carol again:

Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)

Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?

And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.

Carol

That's an awesome idea! I can't venture into Henry T Society again! They now know Liz, Maire and me! I will post in the other forums!



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

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
> >
> > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
> >
> > True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.
>
> Liz responded:
> >
> > Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
>
> > It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)
>
> Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?
>
> And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.
>
> Carol
>
>

Good article; I just read the comments and someone whose child has scoliosis is asking that people stop using the word "hunchback." It's hurtful. Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> That's an awesome idea! I can't venture into Henry T Society again! They now know Liz, Maire and me! I will post in the other forums!
>
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol earlier:
> > > The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
> > >
> > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
> > >
> > > True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.
> >
> > Liz responded:
> > >
> > > Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
> >
> > > It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
> > >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)
> >
> > Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?
> >
> > And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol...I am going to read it as soon as Ive sifted through these email...Yes...Bertram Fields...I adore him...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier: 
> > The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
> >
> > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
> >
> > True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.
>
> Liz responded:
> >
> > Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
>
> > It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)
>
> Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?
>
> And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.
>
> Carol
>

Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Carol...I am going to read it as soon as Ive sifted through these email...Yes...Bertram Fields...I adore him...Eileen
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier: 
> > > The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
> > >
> > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
> > >
> > > True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.
> >
> > Liz responded:
> > >
> > > Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
> >
> > > It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
> > >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)
> >
> > Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?
> >
> > And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this?  Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic.  H



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 19:56
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...I am going to read it as soon as Ive sifted through these email...Yes...Bertram Fields...I adore him...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier: 
> > > The Daily Beast, the website that published the three Newsweek articles, now has a new, exceptionally favorable and well-informed article, which you can read here:
> > >
> > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
> > >
> > > True, he does credit the Countess of Desmond story, but it's nice to have a pro-Richard legend for a change.
> >
> > Liz responded:
> > >
> > > Isn't this the guy who wrote "Royal Blood"?
> >
> > > It's a good article, shame there aren't more like this.
> > >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Oho! I didn't see the attribution to Bert Fields until you pointed it out. (Yes, I know it was in boldface type, hiding in plain sight, but I was looking for a regular byline and didn't see one.)
> >
> > Yes, given both the name and the level of knowledge, it has to be Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood" (which I've ordered and can't wait to read). Eileen, you're a fan of Bertram Fields, if I recall correctly. Have you seen this article?
> >
> > And those of you who are worried about the pro-Tudor stuff on Facebook, maybe you could suggest this article on one of those sites without mentioning that it's pro-Richard? Just a thought, a way to get them to read something worthwhile without antagonizing anybody.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
> Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen

Carol responds:

I'm sure that you're right about his referring to EW being sent to Bermondsey Abbey. The Lambert Simnel affair and the Battle of Stoke occurred in June 1487, not quite two years after Richard's death, when EW was very much alive. She was placed in the abbey in February 1487, several months before the rebellion, but could have been in correspondence with Margaret of York or someone else involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, that's a more logical explanation than the one Henry gave (coming to terms with Richard three years earlier), but we just don't know. (Maybe Marie, who is researching the "feigned boys," can help us out here.)

Perkin Warbeck, IIRC, first claimed the throne in 1490 but did not actually land in England until 1495. EW died in 1492 and could have been aware of his existence and claim but was in no position to support him by that time, even if she wanted to.

It's interesting that, if she did indeed support the Simnel rebellion believing that one of her sons was involved, she would have supported that son over her daughter's son Arthur, born in 1486.

Carol

Thanks Hilary and Carol...thanks for the dates.

Hilary... now I understand what Bertram is getting at. He is quite correct ... that it would seem and make sense that EW was supporting the LS rebellion..although we know that LS was an imposter he would have been a red herring to catch a mackerel...And of course the reasons given out (her making her peace with Richard) for putting EW in Bermondsey were rather daft...

I read a very good article on line a long time ago that Edward V was killed at the Battle of Stoke...all speculation of course but then again a lot of it is...what choice do we have other than speculate...so much is mystery.

Changing the subject slightly...I sometimes feel pity for EW.....What an awful position to be in..possibly knowing that her son/s were alive and having to choose between engaging in plotting to return either prince to the throne which would remove her daughter from the throne. Of course in that event she would have known that EoY would be treated kindly...Maybe MB attitudes to her and even her daughter made the decision easy. Who knows...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
> > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm sure that you're right about his referring to EW being sent to Bermondsey Abbey. The Lambert Simnel affair and the Battle of Stoke occurred in June 1487, not quite two years after Richard's death, when EW was very much alive. She was placed in the abbey in February 1487, several months before the rebellion, but could have been in correspondence with Margaret of York or someone else involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, that's a more logical explanation than the one Henry gave (coming to terms with Richard three years earlier), but we just don't know. (Maybe Marie, who is researching the "feigned boys," can help us out here.)
>
> Perkin Warbeck, IIRC, first claimed the throne in 1490 but did not actually land in England until 1495. EW died in 1492 and could have been aware of his existence and claim but was in no position to support him by that time, even if she wanted to.
>
> It's interesting that, if she did indeed support the Simnel rebellion believing that one of her sons was involved, she would have supported that son over her daughter's son Arthur, born in 1486.
>
> Carol
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H

Carol responds:

Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.

Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.

BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)

Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.

A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.

Carol

I have always wondered how Cicely felt about Richard's taking the throne....... And as Carol mentions why didn't Cicely mention Richard in her will?
Do you know whether she attended Edward4's funeral? She didn't attend Richard's coronation....


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones awrote:
> >
> > Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.
>
> Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.
>
> BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)
>
> Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.
>
> A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.
>
> Carol
>
>

Eileen
> > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up.

It makes sense that Henry would remove EW to a place where she would find communication difficult and once he had established himself upon the throne he set up a system of security that monitored unrest. Lambert Simnel was very much as stalking horse and was seen as such by the Earl of Lincoln and probably others who set him up to test the waters.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Hilary and Carol...thanks for the dates.
>
> Hilary... now I understand what Bertram is getting at. He is quite correct ... that it would seem and make sense that EW was supporting the LS rebellion..although we know that LS was an imposter he would have been a red herring to catch a mackerel...And of course the reasons given out (her making her peace with Richard) for putting EW in Bermondsey were rather daft...
>
> I read a very good article on line a long time ago that Edward V was killed at the Battle of Stoke...all speculation of course but then again a lot of it is...what choice do we have other than speculate...so much is mystery.
>
> Changing the subject slightly...I sometimes feel pity for EW.....What an awful position to be in..possibly knowing that her son/s were alive and having to choose between engaging in plotting to return either prince to the throne which would remove her daughter from the throne. Of course in that event she would have known that EoY would be treated kindly...Maybe MB attitudes to her and even her daughter made the decision easy. Who knows...Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
> > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I'm sure that you're right about his referring to EW being sent to Bermondsey Abbey. The Lambert Simnel affair and the Battle of Stoke occurred in June 1487, not quite two years after Richard's death, when EW was very much alive. She was placed in the abbey in February 1487, several months before the rebellion, but could have been in correspondence with Margaret of York or someone else involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, that's a more logical explanation than the one Henry gave (coming to terms with Richard three years earlier), but we just don't know. (Maybe Marie, who is researching the "feigned boys," can help us out here.)
> >
> > Perkin Warbeck, IIRC, first claimed the throne in 1490 but did not actually land in England until 1495. EW died in 1492 and could have been aware of his existence and claim but was in no position to support him by that time, even if she wanted to.
> >
> > It's interesting that, if she did indeed support the Simnel rebellion believing that one of her sons was involved, she would have supported that son over her daughter's son Arthur, born in 1486.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Further on family relationships: Although Clarence WAS somewhat unreliable & it appears greedy, If the Woodvilles [Queen Downwards] engineered his execution, perhaps 'Self Preservation' was a larger factor than we now realise in R3s thinking. 

If evidence can be unearthed by Tony Robinson of Edward IVs paternity in Rouen [Aside from his possible pre contract [marriage elsewhere.]

This SAME CONCERN might have been known at the time by those involved.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:20
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>
>Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.
>
>Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.
>
>BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)
>
>Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.
>
>A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

It's nice to have a change of topic and I just stumbled on this. The idea of a secret triumvirate of women, EW, Margaret and Cis combining to 'protect' or promote a true heir is very intriguing, given that two of them probably weren't that fond of one another. The other thing is I just can't see Cis promoting someone who wasn't of the true blood - the others in desperation, yes, but not Cis. Then there was Warwick of course. Had his attainder been reversed he would have been of the true blood. Time for some digging, but I don't know where, but will think. Suppose I could ask the NA who wrote the article?  H.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H

Carol responds:

Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.

Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.

BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)

Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.

A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.

Carol

Yes Elaine..it would make a lot of sense..whereas the reason given out that it was because EW had got too friendly with Richard does not. I always wonder what on earth did EoY think about it all. IF this scenario is correct it must have been very tough on her. I don't think it is known if EoY ever laid eyes on Perkin....which would have solved the mystery quick time...I also wonder if she was of a submissive nature...but that might be unfair of me because she was in a situation where there was nothing she could do about it. She could have been happy about the way things panned out for all I know...All a mystery...Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> > > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up.
>
> It makes sense that Henry would remove EW to a place where she would find communication difficult and once he had established himself upon the throne he set up a system of security that monitored unrest. Lambert Simnel was very much as stalking horse and was seen as such by the Earl of Lincoln and probably others who set him up to test the waters.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Hilary and Carol...thanks for the dates.
> >
> > Hilary... now I understand what Bertram is getting at. He is quite correct ... that it would seem and make sense that EW was supporting the LS rebellion..although we know that LS was an imposter he would have been a red herring to catch a mackerel...And of course the reasons given out (her making her peace with Richard) for putting EW in Bermondsey were rather daft...
> >
> > I read a very good article on line a long time ago that Edward V was killed at the Battle of Stoke...all speculation of course but then again a lot of it is...what choice do we have other than speculate...so much is mystery.
> >
> > Changing the subject slightly...I sometimes feel pity for EW.....What an awful position to be in..possibly knowing that her son/s were alive and having to choose between engaging in plotting to return either prince to the throne which would remove her daughter from the throne. Of course in that event she would have known that EoY would be treated kindly...Maybe MB attitudes to her and even her daughter made the decision easy. Who knows...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
> > > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I'm sure that you're right about his referring to EW being sent to Bermondsey Abbey. The Lambert Simnel affair and the Battle of Stoke occurred in June 1487, not quite two years after Richard's death, when EW was very much alive. She was placed in the abbey in February 1487, several months before the rebellion, but could have been in correspondence with Margaret of York or someone else involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, that's a more logical explanation than the one Henry gave (coming to terms with Richard three years earlier), but we just don't know. (Maybe Marie, who is researching the "feigned boys," can help us out here.)
> > >
> > > Perkin Warbeck, IIRC, first claimed the throne in 1490 but did not actually land in England until 1495. EW died in 1492 and could have been aware of his existence and claim but was in no position to support him by that time, even if she wanted to.
> > >
> > > It's interesting that, if she did indeed support the Simnel rebellion believing that one of her sons was involved, she would have supported that son over her daughter's son Arthur, born in 1486.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

She does not appear to have put up a fight against Henry or his mother but the absence of information indicates nothing or her protestations were considered too insignificant to be mentioned. The situation with the nursery is an indication perhaps. MB was in charge of all of that and as far as we know EoY had no say in the matter. That would seem to suggest her wishes were not even considered. There were definitely three people in that marriage.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Elaine..it would make a lot of sense..whereas the reason given out that it was because EW had got too friendly with Richard does not. I always wonder what on earth did EoY think about it all. IF this scenario is correct it must have been very tough on her. I don't think it is known if EoY ever laid eyes on Perkin....which would have solved the mystery quick time...I also wonder if she was of a submissive nature...but that might be unfair of me because she was in a situation where there was nothing she could do about it. She could have been happy about the way things panned out for all I know...All a mystery...Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen
> > > > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up.
> >
> > It makes sense that Henry would remove EW to a place where she would find communication difficult and once he had established himself upon the throne he set up a system of security that monitored unrest. Lambert Simnel was very much as stalking horse and was seen as such by the Earl of Lincoln and probably others who set him up to test the waters.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Hilary and Carol...thanks for the dates.
> > >
> > > Hilary... now I understand what Bertram is getting at. He is quite correct ... that it would seem and make sense that EW was supporting the LS rebellion..although we know that LS was an imposter he would have been a red herring to catch a mackerel...And of course the reasons given out (her making her peace with Richard) for putting EW in Bermondsey were rather daft...
> > >
> > > I read a very good article on line a long time ago that Edward V was killed at the Battle of Stoke...all speculation of course but then again a lot of it is...what choice do we have other than speculate...so much is mystery.
> > >
> > > Changing the subject slightly...I sometimes feel pity for EW.....What an awful position to be in..possibly knowing that her son/s were alive and having to choose between engaging in plotting to return either prince to the throne which would remove her daughter from the throne. Of course in that event she would have known that EoY would be treated kindly...Maybe MB attitudes to her and even her daughter made the decision easy. Who knows...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now then...Ive read the Bertram Fields article...I have a question. Bertram writes "If the two princes were quietly sent abroad for safekeeping, they probably resurfaced later one at a time to claim the throne. HVll indicated concern that the boys' mother and her family would support the claim, suggesting that they may have been legitimate or at least that H feared they were"...What can he mean? When and how did Henry "indicate concern"? EW was dead by the time LS and PW showed up...
> > > > > Or is he perhaps thinking that was the reason EW was sent to Bermondsey Abbey....to keep her out of the way in the event the boys or one of them did turn up. Im rather confused. I rate BF highly so Im wondering if he is thinking on lines that have not occurred to me...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure that you're right about his referring to EW being sent to Bermondsey Abbey. The Lambert Simnel affair and the Battle of Stoke occurred in June 1487, not quite two years after Richard's death, when EW was very much alive. She was placed in the abbey in February 1487, several months before the rebellion, but could have been in correspondence with Margaret of York or someone else involved in the conspiracy. Certainly, that's a more logical explanation than the one Henry gave (coming to terms with Richard three years earlier), but we just don't know. (Maybe Marie, who is researching the "feigned boys," can help us out here.)
> > > >
> > > > Perkin Warbeck, IIRC, first claimed the throne in 1490 but did not actually land in England until 1495. EW died in 1492 and could have been aware of his existence and claim but was in no position to support him by that time, even if she wanted to.
> > > >
> > > > It's interesting that, if she did indeed support the Simnel rebellion believing that one of her sons was involved, she would have supported that son over her daughter's son Arthur, born in 1486.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's nice to have a change of topic and I just stumbled on this. The idea of a secret triumvirate of women, EW, Margaret and Cis combining to 'protect' or promote a true heir is very intriguing, given that two of them probably weren't that fond of one another. The other thing is I just can't see Cis promoting someone who wasn't of the true blood - the others in desperation, yes, but not Cis. Then there was Warwick of course. Had his attainder been reversed he would have been of the true blood. Time for some digging, but I don't know where, but will think. Suppose I could ask the NA who wrote the article?  H.

Carol responds:

I'm confused, Hilary. Where did you find the triumvirate of women idea? The National Archives article suggests that Cecily actively promoted Richard, and I suspect that's true. I can't see her in league with the upstart Woodville queen or the mother of a pseudo-Lancastrian pretender against her own son, or even promoting her grandson over her son (whose bloodline and abilities were both unquestionable).

Carol

To de-confuse you, firstly I was thinking of Margaret of York (not Beaufort) as one of the three and secondly, I'm talking about after Richard's death. The article seems to imply that Cecily (or her servants) were plotting until her death? H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 16:07
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It's nice to have a change of topic and I just stumbled on this. The idea of a secret triumvirate of women, EW, Margaret and Cis combining to 'protect' or promote a true heir is very intriguing, given that two of them probably weren't that fond of one another. The other thing is I just can't see Cis promoting someone who wasn't of the true blood - the others in desperation, yes, but not Cis. Then there was Warwick of course. Had his attainder been reversed he would have been of the true blood. Time for some digging, but I don't know where, but will think. Suppose I could ask the NA who wrote the article?  H.

Carol responds:

I'm confused, Hilary. Where did you find the triumvirate of women idea? The National Archives article suggests that Cecily actively promoted Richard, and I suspect that's true. I can't see her in league with the upstart Woodville queen or the mother of a pseudo-Lancastrian pretender against her own son, or even promoting her grandson over her son (whose bloodline and abilities were both unquestionable).

Carol

Eileen wrote:
>
> Yes Elaine..it would make a lot of sense..whereas the reason given out that it was because EW had got too friendly with Richard does not. I always wonder what on earth did EoY think about it all. IF this scenario is correct it must have been very tough on her. I don't think it is known if EoY ever laid eyes on Perkin....which would have solved the mystery quick time...I also wonder if she was of a submissive nature...but that might be unfair of me because she was in a situation where there was nothing she could do about it. She could have been happy about the way things panned out for all I know...All a mystery...Eileen

Carol responds:

I'm guessing that she didn't want to know. Imagine having to give up her position as queen and her children's right to the succession if Perkin really was her brother.

Carol

Hilary wrote:
>
> To de-confuse you, firstly I was thinking of Margaret of York (not Beaufort) as one of the three and secondly, I'm talking about after Richard's death. The article seems to imply that Cecily (or her servants) were plotting until her death? H
>
Carol responds:

Oho! Now that makes sense. Too bad Weightman's biography of Margaret provides so little help. Anyone know of a good recent biography of Cecily?

I'd really love to know the article's sources. So much still to explore!

Carol

No. That's why I was scrobbling round in Hughes and unlikely places. I'll drop an email to the Archives and see if they can give us the source.   You see what I'm getting at, why would Cecily of all people be plotting if all was lost? H.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Hilary wrote:
>
> To de-confuse you, firstly I was thinking of Margaret of York (not Beaufort) as one of the three and secondly, I'm talking about after Richard's death. The article seems to imply that Cecily (or her servants) were plotting until her death? H
>
Carol responds:

Oho! Now that makes sense. Too bad Weightman's biography of Margaret provides so little help. Anyone know of a good recent biography of Cecily?

I'd really love to know the article's sources. So much still to explore!

Carol

I've written to the NA asking about the authoriship of the blurb on Cis - should get reply within 10 days. H.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
> >
> > To de-confuse you, firstly I was thinking of Margaret of York (not Beaufort) as one of the three and secondly, I'm talking about after Richard's death. The article seems to imply that Cecily (or her servants) were plotting until her death? H
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Oho! Now that makes sense. Too bad Weightman's biography of Margaret provides so little help. Anyone know of a good recent biography of Cecily?
>
> I'd really love to know the article's sources. So much still to explore!
>
> Carol
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've written to the NA asking about the authoriship of the blurb on Cis - should get reply within 10 days. H.

Carol responds:

Wow, Hilary. Thank you for taking the trouble to do that. Let's hope that we can discover his or her sources as well.

Carol

I've yet to see a will that mentioned any dead traitor, no matter how closely related to the subject, and I do feel that historians would be rather naive to have made any capital of this omission. The only reason a dead son would be mentioned in any case would be for inclusion in prayers. Most testators include a lot of money and detail re prayers, usually starting immediately, for their own souls and those of their family, but not Cecily despite being so religious. There is only one such reference: the gift of the reversion of her inn in Grantham (after the death of her former servant Joan Peysmarsh to whom she was leaving it first) to Fotheringhay College "to pray for my Lord my housbond and me." Nor does she mention her grandson Warwick, or her daughter Margaret of Burgundy, or any other politically dicy relations.
I personally suspect that (probably like the relatives of other political unmentionables) Cecily left a lot out of her public will, secretly entrusting additional items to her primary executor Richard Lessy, the Dean of her chapel, to execute on her behalf. Fortunately, we have preserved with Lessy's own will a list of his debts, first amongst which is an item that appears to relate to an unexecuted bequest of Cecily's not mentioned in her will. In modern spelling:-
"I owe to the house of St. John's Sanctuary in Colchester, for my Lady's debts (whom God pardon), £26...."
St John's Sanctuary was a well-known Yorkist refuge.

No women seem to have attended Edward IV's funeral. That was the way things were done.

Marie





--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I have always wondered how Cicely felt about Richard's taking the throne....... And as Carol mentions why didn't Cicely mention Richard in her will?
> Do you know whether she attended Edward4's funeral? She didn't attend Richard's coronation....
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones awrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.
> >
> > Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.
> >
> > BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)
> >
> > Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.
> >
> > A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi,
 
You'll see from other posts that Lessy and Boyvile are mentioned by Weightman as probable spies/plotters between Cecily and Margaret of York after Richard's death. It gets more and more interesting. Did Boyvile  leave a will?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

I've yet to see a will that mentioned any dead traitor, no matter how closely related to the subject, and I do feel that historians would be rather naive to have made any capital of this omission. The only reason a dead son would be mentioned in any case would be for inclusion in prayers. Most testators include a lot of money and detail re prayers, usually starting immediately, for their own souls and those of their family, but not Cecily despite being so religious. There is only one such reference: the gift of the reversion of her inn in Grantham (after the death of her former servant Joan Peysmarsh to whom she was leaving it first) to Fotheringhay College "to pray for my Lord my housbond and me." Nor does she mention her grandson Warwick, or her daughter Margaret of Burgundy, or any other politically dicy relations.
I personally suspect that (probably like the relatives of other political unmentionables) Cecily left a lot out of her public will, secretly entrusting additional items to her primary executor Richard Lessy, the Dean of her chapel, to execute on her behalf. Fortunately, we have preserved with Lessy's own will a list of his debts, first amongst which is an item that appears to relate to an unexecuted bequest of Cecily's not mentioned in her will. In modern spelling:-
"I owe to the house of St. John's Sanctuary in Colchester, for my Lady's debts (whom God pardon), £26...."
St John's Sanctuary was a well-known Yorkist refuge.

No women seem to have attended Edward IV's funeral. That was the way things were done.

Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I have always wondered how Cicely felt about Richard's taking the throne....... And as Carol mentions why didn't Cicely mention Richard in her will?
> Do you know whether she attended Edward4's funeral? She didn't attend Richard's coronation....
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones awrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I've just returned and have to catch up on literally hundreds of emails so forgive me. On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it connected with what you have raised? PS I too am a great Bertram fan; he argues with impeccable logic. H
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Interesting, especially given that the National Archives site presents the "Princes in the Tower" as murdered (by either Richard or Henry). The author of this article seems to assume that Edward IV really was illegitimate and that Richard was therefore the rightful king and that Cecily supported his kingship for that reason. (Certainly, she would have supported his appointment as Protector; that much is a given.) I've heard nothing about her "[holding] a meeting at her London home to nullify Edward's will" or supporting the allegation that her nephews were illegitimate. She allowed Richard to stay in her house and hold meetings there, but there's no indication that she was present. And the only servant of Cecily's that I know of is one who needed to be replaced after his execution for treason: Colyngbourne.
> >
> > Which is not to say that these statements are untrue, only that I've never heard them before. I would certainly like to see solid evidence that Cecily backed Richard, preferably something other than the allegation that Edward IV was illegitimate. If we could only find evidence that she knew about the precontract, but I'm afraid that's unlikely.
> >
> > BTW, I wonder if someone went through Cecily's correspondence and destroyed all but one letter from Richard--or maybe she did it herself, just as she carefully refrained from mentioning him in her will. (Then, again, there was no need, as his illegitimate children were presumably dead by that time and Edward's daughter was queen.)
> >
> > Christine Weightman suggests in her biography of Margaret of York that mother and daughter maintained a secret correspondence after Richard's death but does not follow up on this idea. My guess is that both of them opposed the Tudor regime, one secretly, the other openly. And it's entirely possible that Cecily knew quite well that her two illegitimate grandsons, Edward and Richard, were in the care of her daughter, Margaret, sent there by her last and now-dead son, Richard, who had also, as we know, secretly corresponded with Margaret.
> >
> > A long and complicated way of saying, I don't know, but this is interesting and I'd like to know more. Unfortunately, I can find no indication of the author's name or the sources consulted.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Most testators include a lot of money and detail re prayers, usually
> starting immediately, for their own souls and those of their family, but
> not Cecily despite being so religious.

How religious was she, exactly? I came across a reference recently - I
can't remember where - to the effect that her husband had to emply a special
officer to keep an eye on her spending othewrwise she would have bankrupted
him, which suggests that she was what we would now call a shopaholic, and
that her decision to go into a convent might have had an element of therapy,
a desire to curb her own behaviour, like checking into a clinic nowadays.
Although a desire to curb her own extravagance might itself stem from a
devout desire to suppress something she might see as vanity and greed.

That was true - he gave her her own accountant to keep an eye on her spending (I love her). But I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about piety in medieval regilious houses. If you didn't take your vows you could almost book in like a hotel and they would be glad of your anticipated bequests when you passed on (see Jones and JAH).  H. (sorry if that sounds a bit blaze but that's the gist)



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 17:12
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Most testators include a lot of money and detail re prayers, usually
> starting immediately, for their own souls and those of their family, but
> not Cecily despite being so religious.

How religious was she, exactly? I came across a reference recently - I
can't remember where - to the effect that her husband had to emply a special
officer to keep an eye on her spending othewrwise she would have bankrupted
him, which suggests that she was what we would now call a shopaholic, and
that her decision to go into a convent might have had an element of therapy,
a desire to curb her own behaviour, like checking into a clinic nowadays.
Although a desire to curb her own extravagance might itself stem from a
devout desire to suppress something she might see as vanity and greed.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> That was true - he gave her her own accountant to keep an eye on her
> spending (I love her). But I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about
> piety in medieval regilious houses. If you didn't take your vows you could
> almost book in like a hotel and they would be glad of your anticipated
> bequests when you passed on (see Jones and JAH). H. (sorry if that sounds
> a bit blaze but that's the gist)

Yes - a bit like booking into a posh retirement home, or like the Chelsea
Pensioners, who are expected to attend prayers every day as part of their
conditions for living in comfortable retirement, but aren't necessarily
especially religious as individuals.

I like the bit of business where Richard wrote to somebody bitching about
his mother in law spending all his money on expensive religious jewellery.
Opinions may vary as to whether she was living at Middleham to protect her
or as a sort of prisoner, but if she was a prisoner she was nevertheless one
to whom he had evidently said the equivalent of "Feel free to order anything
you need and charge it my account", and had then lived to regret it.

Claire wrote
<I like the bit of business where Richard wrote to somebody bitching about
his mother in law spending all his money on expensive religious jewellery.
Opinions may vary as to whether she was living at Middleham to protect her
or as a sort of prisoner, but if she was a prisoner she was nevertheless one
to whom he had evidently said the equivalent of "Feel free to order anything
you need and charge it my account", and had then lived to regret it. >

Anti Richard camp uses this to " prove" their point that Richard was unkind to his " imprisoned" mother in law.......But it is easy to build around even everyday correspondence of a frustrated person to prove him a villain:/

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:36 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > That was true - he gave her her own accountant to keep an eye on her
> > spending (I love her). But I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about
> > piety in medieval regilious houses. If you didn't take your vows you could
> > almost book in like a hotel and they would be glad of your anticipated
> > bequests when you passed on (see Jones and JAH). H. (sorry if that sounds
> > a bit blaze but that's the gist)
>
> Yes - a bit like booking into a posh retirement home, or like the Chelsea
> Pensioners, who are expected to attend prayers every day as part of their
> conditions for living in comfortable retirement, but aren't necessarily
> especially religious as individuals.
>
> I like the bit of business where Richard wrote to somebody bitching about
> his mother in law spending all his money on expensive religious jewellery.
> Opinions may vary as to whether she was living at Middleham to protect her
> or as a sort of prisoner, but if she was a prisoner she was nevertheless one
> to whom he had evidently said the equivalent of "Feel free to order anything
> you need and charge it my account", and had then lived to regret it.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Anti Richard camp uses this to " prove" their point that Richard was
> unkind to his " imprisoned" mother in law.......But it is easy to build
> around even everyday correspondence of a frustrated person to prove him a
> villain:/

I don't think it shows him being unkind at all - quite the reverse, he's
obviously given her free rein to spend his money how she liked, and then
realised that her tastes were more expensive than he could keep up with.
Especially as we still have what seems to be the reliquary-pendant in
question, and it must have cost a bomb (and not only did it cost a bomb but
somebody, probably her, dropped the bloody thing while out riding). And his
mother's history of extravagance must have made him nervous that his ma in
law just wasn't going to stop - and even so, iirc he wasn't actually being
*nasty* about it, just a bit exasperated. I suspect if he'd had a Facebook
page his emotional status would have been "ratty" quite a lot of the time.

Generally speaking, any situation in which Richard appears to have behaved
badly is amenable to other interpretation if you examine it carefully. I'm
sure for example that I can't be the first person to have spotted that a
message could and almost certainly would have reached Richard overnight at
Stony Stratford, telling him that the reason Anthony Woodville had been
wineing and dining him was to keep him away from London while the Queen
Dowager half-inched the Great Royal Seal, and that he arrested the Woodville
faction in the morning because they had behaved treacherously to him, rather
than vice versa.

One that interests me is that there was a court case during the Tudor era in
which a memo from Richard to one of the Pastons was producedd in evidence.
It sounds at first sight to have been very unpleasant and threatening, and
the court took it as such - it said something to the effect that Paston must
do as he was being told "or it will cost him that he holds dearest".

But the Pastons were close friends with the York boys, and we know from the
Buckingham postscript that Richard at least sometimes used "him that" where
he should have said "him who", so the note is open to two completely
different interpretations:

"Do as I say or the king my brother will deprive you of the thing you hold
dearest."

"Do as I say otherwise the king my brother, whom I know you love dearly,
will lose out as a result."

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> I like the bit of business where Richard wrote to somebody bitching about his mother in law spending all his money on expensive religious jewellery. [snip}

Carol responds:
Which "bit of business," Claire? I'm aware of Richard Duke of York's concern that Cecily was spending too much money, but I don't know of any similar letter or statement by his son as either Duke of Gloucester or king about the Countess of Warwick.

BTW, my apologies for thinking that you were carrying speculation too far in the other thread. I was concerned that the thread was getting out of hand since the sexual connotations of the imagery were only my speculations in the first place, and I interpreted them as going in the opposite direction, sexual naivete. At any rate, it does seem from the context that Hall intended naivete and unworldliness of some sort, but he, too, was speculating based on the long confinement. And my original intention was too show that their was no genetic basis for his supposed mental retardation.

The snow is sticking to the roof tiles but it's only light flurries now. I hope I won't have to drive on snowy roads for the first time in thirty years!

Carol

Claire, I completely agree with you. It is just so easy to misconstrue things when taken out of context or when words are known to be used in a different manner.
For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to each other!




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Anti Richard camp uses this to " prove" their point that Richard was
> unkind to his " imprisoned" mother in law.......But it is easy to build
> around even everyday correspondence of a frustrated person to prove him a
> villain:/

I don't think it shows him being unkind at all - quite the reverse, he's
obviously given her free rein to spend his money how she liked, and then
realised that her tastes were more expensive than he could keep up with.
Especially as we still have what seems to be the reliquary-pendant in
question, and it must have cost a bomb (and not only did it cost a bomb but
somebody, probably her, dropped the bloody thing while out riding). And his
mother's history of extravagance must have made him nervous that his ma in
law just wasn't going to stop - and even so, iirc he wasn't actually being
*nasty* about it, just a bit exasperated. I suspect if he'd had a Facebook
page his emotional status would have been "ratty" quite a lot of the time.

Generally speaking, any situation in which Richard appears to have behaved
badly is amenable to other interpretation if you examine it carefully. I'm
sure for example that I can't be the first person to have spotted that a
message could and almost certainly would have reached Richard overnight at
Stony Stratford, telling him that the reason Anthony Woodville had been
wineing and dining him was to keep him away from London while the Queen
Dowager half-inched the Great Royal Seal, and that he arrested the Woodville
faction in the morning because they had behaved treacherously to him, rather
than vice versa.

One that interests me is that there was a court case during the Tudor era in
which a memo from Richard to one of the Pastons was producedd in evidence.
It sounds at first sight to have been very unpleasant and threatening, and
the court took it as such - it said something to the effect that Paston must
do as he was being told "or it will cost him that he holds dearest".

But the Pastons were close friends with the York boys, and we know from the
Buckingham postscript that Richard at least sometimes used "him that" where
he should have said "him who", so the note is open to two completely
different interpretations:

"Do as I say or the king my brother will deprive you of the thing you hold
dearest."

"Do as I say otherwise the king my brother, whom I know you love dearly,
will lose out as a result."

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Which "bit of business," Claire? I'm aware of Richard Duke of York's
> concern that Cecily was spending too much money, but I don't know of any
> similar letter or statement by his son as either Duke of Gloucester or
> king about the Countess of Warwick.

Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It
was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost
certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter
to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop
her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." He clearly
didn't stop her from having the Middleham Jewel made, since it still exists;
equally clearly, to be making this complaint at all, he must have given her
permissionm whether tacit or explicit, to buy whatever she needed and charge
it to him. From the look of it, although her possessions had officially
been taken off her and divided between George and Richard, Richard had still
let her control the money that should have been hers until she burned right
through into his own budget, at which point he began bitching about it - but
not especially nastily. At worst, he's being a little "tight" - depending
on quite how extravagant she was being.

> BTW, my apologies for thinking that you were carrying speculation too far
> in the other thread.

's OK. I was a Data Analyst and programmer for the NHS for ten years, and
one of my ways of analysing data is to construct a scenario which matches
the information I have, and then look for more data that either supports or
contradicts it. That Warbeck had a successful marriage rules out his being
gay - although not necessarily his being bi. As you say, the goose/capon
thing could also indicate sexual naivete - it could mean "He's led such a
restricted life he's never even had the chance to find out if he's gay or
straight" rather than "He's sexually ambiguous."

I remember the bit about Richard complaining about the money the Countess was spending on the relic or an ornate  prie-due, from a conversation on the forum around October/ November. I think Richard was paying her 80 marks for her own expenses while footing her other bills.... AND she blew the budget on whatever she bought and Richard was not happy about it..... I think this was when we were discussing Richard and Clarence taking over  the countess's Beuchamp lands and had her declared "as if dead" at the parliament......Does anyone else remember the discussion?




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Which "bit of business," Claire? I'm aware of Richard Duke of York's
> concern that Cecily was spending too much money, but I don't know of any
> similar letter or statement by his son as either Duke of Gloucester or
> king about the Countess of Warwick.

Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It
was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost
certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter
to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop
her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." He clearly
didn't stop her from having the Middleham Jewel made, since it still exists;
equally clearly, to be making this complaint at all, he must have given her
permissionm whether tacit or explicit, to buy whatever she needed and charge
it to him. From the look of it, although her possessions had officially
been taken off her and divided between George and Richard, Richard had still
let her control the money that should have been hers until she burned right
through into his own budget, at which point he began bitching about it - but
not especially nastily. At worst, he's being a little "tight" - depending
on quite how extravagant she was being.

> BTW, my apologies for thinking that you were carrying speculation too far
> in the other thread.

's OK. I was a Data Analyst and programmer for the NHS for ten years, and
one of my ways of analysing data is to construct a scenario which matches
the information I have, and then look for more data that either supports or
contradicts it. That Warbeck had a successful marriage rules out his being
gay - although not necessarily his being bi. As you say, the goose/capon
thing could also indicate sexual naivete - it could mean "He's led such a
restricted life he's never even had the chance to find out if he's gay or
straight" rather than "He's sexually ambiguous."

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." [snip]

Carol responds:

Hm. I'm unfamiliar with that letter. I'll check "The Road to Bosworth" tonight to see if it's there. Meanwhile, if anyone can quote from the letter or find a link to it, I'd appreciate it.

Carol

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> each other!

Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
chronically unable to delegate....

Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > each other!
>
> Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> chronically unable to delegate....
>
>

Like Carol, I have never heard of this with regard to Anne Beauchamp/Warwick.  I have read somewhere that she dabbled in the 'old religion' though and was allowed to continue. H



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> each other!

Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
chronically unable to delegate....

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



> Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and
> mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!

You know about his correspondence with the king of France? The French king
wrote to Richard about some political matter - I forget what - but the
letter ends "...which I send by the hand of this groom. Adieu, monsieur mon
cousin." Richard replied perfectly soberly, except that *his* letter ended
"...which I send by the hand of this dog-boy. And adieu to *you*, monsieur
mon cousin."

The usual interpretation of this is that they were progressively insulting
each other by using such lowly emissaries. There is another possibility -
I'm not sure what the date was, but if it was early enough in Richard's
reign that the letter came from Louis XI (who died eight weeks after Richard
was crowned), well, Louis was famously obsessed with dogs and dressed like a
dog-boy himself, so the correspondence *could* be a sign that Richard was as
horse-mad as Louis was dog-mad, and they're saying to each other "I send
this by my groom/dog-boy because I know you'll be more interested in finding
out about my horses/dogs than about the politics."

But however you cut it, the French king was having a little dig at Richard,
and Richard dug back harder.

The so-called overspending quoted is Pollard leaping to the conclusion that some tablet she purchased which didn't please Richard is the Middleham Jewel. He then makes a few more leaps.
Since the Middleham Jewel concerns safety in childbirth and epilepsy it's unlikely that the Countess would have commissioned it at this stage in her life - so perhaps one leap too far! But he does mention she was believed to belong to the cult of St Penket, so I was right in my memories of her dealings with strange cults.  H. 


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Claire M Jordan" mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > each other!
>
> Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> chronically unable to delegate....
>
>

It's Pollard quoting from a letter of 1478 from William Smethon a landowner in the service of Richard Clervaux a landowner of Middleham which says that the Countess of Warwick has made a great table of gold and that my Lord Gloucester is not pleased.

Pollard leaps on to conclude this is the Middleham Jewel - though why she would commission a jewel which is about childbirth at this stage in her life I for one would question. And he has to admit he doesn't really know or what the table of gold is. He does say she is believed to belong to the sect of St Penket, an obscure whirling saint - which is the bit I must have remembered.

No other record of supposed spending H

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hm. I'm unfamiliar with that letter. I'll check "The Road to Bosworth" tonight to see if it's there. Meanwhile, if anyone can quote from the letter or find a link to it, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Carol
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> The so-called overspending quoted is Pollard leaping to the conclusion
that some tablet she purchased which didn't please Richard is the Middleham
Jewel.

It's the original "didn't please Richard" bit which we're talking about, and
*I'm* assuming it's the Middleham Jewel, because there's a description of
the tablet involved and it matched the MJ very closely.

Do you know where I can find the letter? Online sources I mean.
And I will try to locate the post from November.... Not a mean task that!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> It's Pollard quoting from a letter of 1478 from William Smethon a landowner in the service of Richard Clervaux a landowner of Middleham which says that the Countess of Warwick has made a great table of gold and that my Lord Gloucester is not pleased.
>
> Pollard leaps on to conclude this is the Middleham Jewel - though why she would commission a jewel which is about childbirth at this stage in her life I for one would question. And he has to admit he doesn't really know or what the table of gold is. He does say she is believed to belong to the sect of St Penket, an obscure whirling saint - which is the bit I must have remembered.
>
> No other record of supposed spending H
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hm. I'm unfamiliar with that letter. I'll check "The Road to Bosworth" tonight to see if it's there. Meanwhile, if anyone can quote from the letter or find a link to it, I'd appreciate it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> It's the original "didn't please Richard" bit which we're talking about,
> and
*I'm* assuming it's the Middleham Jewel, because there's a description of
the tablet involved and it matched the MJ very closely.

I should say, iirc these are two separate things. There's Richard's letter,
or a description of it, complaining about how much she's spending, and
separately from that there's a document from around the same time, ordering
a reliquary which is described in detail and sounds very like the Middleham
Jewel. I'm not sure whether the document was someting in the possession of
the person who was making the reliquary - "My lady has ordered a jewel which
is of the following specifications", sort of thing - or an entry in the
accounts, saying "My lady has paid X amount for a jewel which is of the
following specifications".

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The so-called overspending quoted is Pollard leaping to the conclusion that some tablet she purchased which didn't please Richard is the Middleham Jewel. He then makes a few more leaps.
> Since the Middleham Jewel concerns safety in childbirth and epilepsy it's unlikely that the Countess would have commissioned it at this stage in her life - so perhaps one leap too far! But he does mention she was believed to belong to the cult of St Penket, so I was right in my memories of her dealings with strange cults.  H. 

Carol responds:

Although I've seen this association of the Middleham jewel with childbirth and epilepsy, I'm not sure that it's accurate. It seems to be purely a religious relic, with an engraving of the Nativity on one side and the Crucifixion on the other. I've read (I think in an old issue of the Ricardian Bulletin that I no longer own) that it had the joined initials R and A on it somewhere (I can't find them in any online photos, but I didn't try very hard), so it could have belonged to either Richard of Gloucester and Anne Neville or Richard Neville and Anne Beauchamp. I can't recall whether Ralph Neville's first wife's name began with A; if so, that's a third possibility. And, or course, if it does include those entwined initials, it would have been odd if the Countess ordered it all those years after her late husband's death--unless it was a gift for Richard and Anne, in which case it would be very odd for him to complain about the expense.

Carol

Me too, a fine mind, and when he says something it means something. However, he probably did not speak or write until he had pondered it well and completely.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:48 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > each other!
>
> Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> chronically unable to delegate....
>
>

Bravo, King Richard, zing, right to the spot!!!!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:50 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Ishita Bandyo
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and
> mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!

You know about his correspondence with the king of France? The French king
wrote to Richard about some political matter - I forget what - but the
letter ends "...which I send by the hand of this groom. Adieu, monsieur mon
cousin." Richard replied perfectly soberly, except that *his* letter ended
"...which I send by the hand of this dog-boy. And adieu to *you*, monsieur
mon cousin."

The usual interpretation of this is that they were progressively insulting
each other by using such lowly emissaries. There is another possibility -
I'm not sure what the date was, but if it was early enough in Richard's
reign that the letter came from Louis XI (who died eight weeks after Richard
was crowned), well, Louis was famously obsessed with dogs and dressed like a
dog-boy himself, so the correspondence *could* be a sign that Richard was as
horse-mad as Louis was dog-mad, and they're saying to each other "I send
this by my groom/dog-boy because I know you'll be more interested in finding
out about my horses/dogs than about the politics."

But however you cut it, the French king was having a little dig at Richard,
and Richard dug back harder.

Our man was no pushover:)

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Bravo, King Richard, zing, right to the spot!!!!
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:50 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and
>> mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!
>
> You know about his correspondence with the king of France? The French king
> wrote to Richard about some political matter - I forget what - but the
> letter ends "...which I send by the hand of this groom. Adieu, monsieur mon
> cousin." Richard replied perfectly soberly, except that *his* letter ended
> "...which I send by the hand of this dog-boy. And adieu to *you*, monsieur
> mon cousin."
>
> The usual interpretation of this is that they were progressively insulting
> each other by using such lowly emissaries. There is another possibility -
> I'm not sure what the date was, but if it was early enough in Richard's
> reign that the letter came from Louis XI (who died eight weeks after Richard
> was crowned), well, Louis was famously obsessed with dogs and dressed like a
> dog-boy himself, so the correspondence *could* be a sign that Richard was as
> horse-mad as Louis was dog-mad, and they're saying to each other "I send
> this by my groom/dog-boy because I know you'll be more interested in finding
> out about my horses/dogs than about the politics."
>
> But however you cut it, the French king was having a little dig at Richard,
> and Richard dug back harder.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Makes me all the fonder of our favorite King!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Our man was no pushover:)

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Bravo, King Richard, zing, right to the spot!!!!
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:50 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and
>> mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!
>
> You know about his correspondence with the king of France? The French king
> wrote to Richard about some political matter - I forget what - but the
> letter ends "...which I send by the hand of this groom. Adieu, monsieur mon
> cousin." Richard replied perfectly soberly, except that *his* letter ended
> "...which I send by the hand of this dog-boy. And adieu to *you*, monsieur
> mon cousin."
>
> The usual interpretation of this is that they were progressively insulting
> each other by using such lowly emissaries. There is another possibility -
> I'm not sure what the date was, but if it was early enough in Richard's
> reign that the letter came from Louis XI (who died eight weeks after Richard
> was crowned), well, Louis was famously obsessed with dogs and dressed like a
> dog-boy himself, so the correspondence *could* be a sign that Richard was as
> horse-mad as Louis was dog-mad, and they're saying to each other "I send
> this by my groom/dog-boy because I know you'll be more interested in finding
> out about my horses/dogs than about the politics."
>
> But however you cut it, the French king was having a little dig at Richard,
> and Richard dug back harder.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Me too, a fine mind, and when he says something it means something.
> However, he probably did not speak or write until he had pondered it well
> and completely.

Well, I think he possibly had an explosive temper at times, but...

It's not as simple as to say, as is often said, that Richard was generous
and Henry mean, because Henry too was capable of acts of spectacular
generosity. But we *can* say that Henry's generosity was random and
whimsical, whereas Richard's generosity was of a kind which suggests that he
had a clearly organised idea of social justice and had thought hard about
the welfare of the common people etc. If he was alive today he'd probably
be that rare bird, an honest and sincere politician.

There's a story told about him - I don't remember the source - that the
night before Bosworth he refused to have mass said for his victory, because
he said that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win whether he
said mass or not, and if it *wasn't* God's will that he should win then it
would be blasphemous to pray for victory. I hope this is true, because if
so it shows a clear, logical, independent and intelligent mind.

[snip]
>
> There's a story told about him - I don't remember the source - that the night before Bosworth he refused to have mass said for his victory, because he said that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win whether he said mass or not, and if it *wasn't* God's will that he should win then it would be blasphemous to pray for victory. I hope this is true, because if so it shows a clear, logical, independent and intelligent mind.

Carol responds:

It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession, probably the morning of Bosworth rather than the night before. John Ashdown-Hill discusses the topic in "The Last Days of Richard III."

Now to take a last look at all that cold white stuff coating the ground and trees and cacti before the sun goes down. . . .

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



> It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,

Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
his refusing to have mass said for victory.

To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
Ishita


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
>
> Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> his refusing to have mass said for victory.
>
>

Ishita
May I suggest that you try Copernic as your search engine, I use it on my Microsoft based network and it works very well. No good for Mac systems
http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/home/download.html

George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
> Ishita
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
> >
> > Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> > who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> > before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> > his refusing to have mass said for victory.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

George, thanks! Can I use it from my iPad? I am on the go most of the time......
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:05 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> Ishita
> May I suggest that you try Copernic as your search engine, I use it on my Microsoft based network and it works very well. No good for Mac systems
> http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/home/download.html
>
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> > To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> > >
> > > > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > > > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
> > >
> > > Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> > > who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> > > before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> > > his refusing to have mass said for victory.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No sorry unless you have a Windows product it will not work,however try Firefox its a bit faster than Safari
Also make sure that you're not running concurrent apps with your ipad as this can slow it down.

G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:08 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> George, thanks! Can I use it from my iPad? I am on the go most of the time......
> Ishita
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:05 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita
> > May I suggest that you try Copernic as your search engine, I use it on my Microsoft based network and it works very well. No good for Mac systems
> > http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/home/download.html
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > > To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> > > >
> > > > > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > > > > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
> > > >
> > > > Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> > > > who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> > > > before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> > > > his refusing to have mass said for victory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"And, or course, if it does include those entwined initials, it would have
been odd if the Countess ordered it all those years after her late husband's
death--unless it was a gift for Richard and Anne, in which case it would be
very odd for him to complain about the expense."

Doug here:
I don't know about Richard, but I'd be a bit "upset" if the gift someone
gave me had the bill attached (so to speak).

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Although I've seen this association of the Middleham jewel with childbirth
> and epilepsy, I'm not sure that it's accurate. It seems to be purely a
> religious relic, with an engraving of the Nativity on one side and the
> Crucifixion on the other. I've read (I think in an old issue of the
> Ricardian Bulletin that I no longer own) that it had the joined initials R
> and A on it somewhere (I can't find them in any online photos, but I
> didn't try very hard),

Alison Weir (and even a brief glance in Google Books shows how bad a writer
she is) refers to "a crescent pendant found near Middleham Castle and linked
to Richard III and Ann Neville by the engraved initials 'R' and 'A'." The
Middleham Jewel isn't a crescent. I can't find any other reference to a
crescent pendant found near Middleham or to the initials R and A on any
piece of jewellery found there - although it rings a vague bell with me too.

If it was to do with childbirth it would make sense for it to be Ann's
because it would go with the long "of the blessed Julian" prayer which is
also supposed to be for a woman in childbirth. Perhaps they saw the
countess's expensive pendant and liked it so much that Richard ordered a
very similar one for Ann from the same maker!

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > Although I've seen this association of the Middleham jewel with childbirth
> > and epilepsy, I'm not sure that it's accurate. It seems to be purely a
> > religious relic, with an engraving of the Nativity on one side and the
> > Crucifixion on the other. I've read (I think in an old issue of the
> > Ricardian Bulletin that I no longer own) that it had the joined initials R
> > and A on it somewhere (I can't find them in any online photos, but I
> > didn't try very hard),
>
> Alison Weir (and even a brief glance in Google Books shows how bad a writer
> she is) refers to "a crescent pendant found near Middleham Castle and linked
> to Richard III and Ann Neville by the engraved initials 'R' and 'A'." The
> Middleham Jewel isn't a crescent. I can't find any other reference to a
> crescent pendant found near Middleham or to the initials R and A on any
> piece of jewellery found there - although it rings a vague bell with me too.
>
> If it was to do with childbirth it would make sense for it to be Ann's
> because it would go with the long "of the blessed Julian" prayer which is
> also supposed to be for a woman in childbirth. Perhaps they saw the
> countess's expensive pendant and liked it so much that Richard ordered a
> very similar one for Ann from the same maker!
>


Unless I'm very much mistaken, this crescent pendant with the initials 'R' and 'A' bears the inscription 'a vous plaisir' which makes it a pretty typical love token of the time. (Although I believe there's no proof it actually belonged to Richard and Anne: the initials might just as easily refer to Richard Neville and Anne Beauchamp, for instance. Though as the latter were betrothed as very small children indeed, it's a bit more difficult to see theirs as the kind of marriage that would warrant courtly love tokens... but, well, you never know.)

Here's something about the inscription on the Middleham Jewel:
http://www.ingolstadt.de/stadtmuseum/scheuerer/ing/ananiz05.htm

I don't know where the associations with childbirth and epilepsy come from - that sounds like a pretty straightforward religious inscription to me. But of course there might always be hidden meanings.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Unless I'm very much mistaken, this crescent pendant with the initials 'R'
> and 'A' bears the inscription 'a vous plaisir' which makes it a pretty
> typical love token of the time.

Right, ta, so the R&A is on a different piece of jewellery, not the
Middleham Jewel, and therefore don't preclude the Middleham Jewel from being
the expensive piece commissioned by the Countess of Warwick.

Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:14
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> The so-called overspending quoted is Pollard leaping to the conclusion
that some tablet she purchased which didn't please Richard is the Middleham
Jewel.

It's the original "didn't please Richard" bit which we're talking about, and
*I'm* assuming it's the Middleham Jewel, because there's a description of
the tablet involved and it matched the MJ very closely.

I don't know anything about Richard's letter (and neither does Pollard) but the other letter I quoted from Smethon was found at the behind the grant of free warren from Edward IV dated 1478. Smethon says the Countess of Warwick 'has made a great table of gold of St Pen, and the Holy Trinity with which my lord is not pleased.' He adds  'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not know what that means but says that as the Jewel contains the Nativity scene with 15 saints - one could be St Penket (because if whirls). Iis this the epilepsy interpretation about the Jewel?   R's disapproval, Pollard claims, could be as much about her supporting an obscure cult, rather than overspending.  H


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:55
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> It's the original "didn't please Richard" bit which we're talking about,
> and
*I'm* assuming it's the Middleham Jewel, because there's a description of
the tablet involved and it matched the MJ very closely.

I should say, iirc these are two separate things. There's Richard's letter,
or a description of it, complaining about how much she's spending, and
separately from that there's a document from around the same time, ordering
a reliquary which is described in detail and sounds very like the Middleham
Jewel. I'm not sure whether the document was someting in the possession of
the person who was making the reliquary - "My lady has ordered a jewel which
is of the following specifications", sort of thing - or an entry in the
accounts, saying "My lady has paid X amount for a jewel which is of the
following specifications".

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.
>
>


Golden table, eh. I would blink twice, too...

(The 'table' could easily be just inconsistent spelling, though. Both 'table' and 'tablet' derive from the same Old French roots, after all, and ultimately the Latin 'tabula'.)

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I don't know anything about Richard's letter (and neither does Pollard)
but the other letter I quoted from Smethon was found at the behind the grant
of free warren from Edward IV dated 1478. Smethon says the Countess of
Warwick 'has made a great table of gold of St Pen, and the Holy Trinity with
which my lord is not pleased.'

Oh yeah, that's the bunny. I thought there was a separate description in
the accounts as well but I could be wrong, since this note includes a
partial description. At any rate, and for whatever reason Richard wasn't
pleased, and whether or not it's the Middleham Jewel which is being referred
to, it shows that the Countess was still free to spend vast amounts of money
on a whim (and evidently without needing to ask permission first), so her
status, whatever it was, was not onerous.

> He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.'

Some slang expression relating to Robin Hood, maybe? Could it refer to some
custom for one of the local nobs to give out money to the poor? Although
I'd vaguely assumed it mean she was going to be visiting a Rob??? House. Is
there any grand or religious house nearby with a name starting with Rob?

Indeed. And I haven't seen the writing on the original but I bow to Pollard's much greater experience.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 9:21
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.
>
>

Golden table, eh. I would blink twice, too...

(The 'table' could easily be just inconsistent spelling, though. Both 'table' and 'tablet' derive from the same Old French roots, after all, and ultimately the Latin 'tabula'.)

Well if Pollard hasn't found out, I doubt I shall. He does suggest Rubbing House at Middleham where St Penket followers are thought to have danced.
Have you read the 'Court of the Midnight King' ? That is about the Countess's dabbling in the 'old arts'.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 9:42
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> I don't know anything about Richard's letter (and neither does Pollard)
but the other letter I quoted from Smethon was found at the behind the grant
of free warren from Edward IV dated 1478. Smethon says the Countess of
Warwick 'has made a great table of gold of St Pen, and the Holy Trinity with
which my lord is not pleased.'

Oh yeah, that's the bunny. I thought there was a separate description in
the accounts as well but I could be wrong, since this note includes a
partial description. At any rate, and for whatever reason Richard wasn't
pleased, and whether or not it's the Middleham Jewel which is being referred
to, it shows that the Countess was still free to spend vast amounts of money
on a whim (and evidently without needing to ask permission first), so her
status, whatever it was, was not onerous.

> He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.'

Some slang expression relating to Robin Hood, maybe? Could it refer to some
custom for one of the local nobs to give out money to the poor? Although
I'd vaguely assumed it mean she was going to be visiting a Rob??? House. Is
there any grand or religious house nearby with a name starting with Rob?

Never dismiss Susan Higginbotham - she might be a novelist and not pro Richard but she knows a lot.
The Dorothy in the correspondence below the article  is Dorothy Davies - who has written on Clarence (Death be Pardoner to Me) and Rivers (Lord of the Wight). She is a medium who takes down what they say to her, but the former book, which I have, is very plausible. I think she's sec to the Foundation.   H.


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

Do you know where I can find the letter? Online sources I mean.
And I will try to locate the post from November.... Not a mean task that!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's Pollard quoting from a letter of 1478 from William Smethon a landowner in the service of Richard Clervaux a landowner of Middleham which says that the Countess of Warwick has made a great table of gold and that my Lord Gloucester is not pleased.
>
> Pollard leaps on to conclude this is the Middleham Jewel - though why she would commission a jewel which is about childbirth at this stage in her life I for one would question. And he has to admit he doesn't really know or what the table of gold is. He does say she is believed to belong to the sect of St Penket, an obscure whirling saint - which is the bit I must have remembered.
>
> No other record of supposed spending H
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hm. I'm unfamiliar with that letter. I'll check "The Road to Bosworth" tonight to see if it's there. Meanwhile, if anyone can quote from the letter or find a link to it, I'd appreciate it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

I"ve read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe bible and was not heretical in the least. But as we all know I'm no expert and am just repeating what I read.

Would Richard have taken Communion on August 22? Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
> Ishita
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
> >
> > Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> > who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> > before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> > his refusing to have mass said for victory.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

  We can be REASONABLY sure that self preservation was THEN as now a strong motive for acting in a given way. Richard, having seen his father, his YOUNG brother summarily executed and his older brother Clarence killed in some premature way. As a result he may well have behaved in ways towards members of the Woodville clan & Hastings that we find difficult to fully fathom at this distance. 

  Additionally he may have been angered by acts perceived as hostile towards him while working away in the north. If he also blamed certain individuals or groupings for Edward's death and as a result felt these/this threatened him in a very real way, then small wonder he reacted.  

  We ALSO need to remember this was a man whose own wife & son had recently both died, any feelings of insecurity is totally able to be explained. The safest place for this 'Sonne of York' may well be perceived as wearing the crown.    

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 19:24
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>From: Ishita Bandyo
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> Anti Richard camp uses this to " prove" their point that Richard was
>> unkind to his " imprisoned" mother in law.......But it is easy to build
>> around even everyday correspondence of a frustrated person to prove him a
>> villain:/
>
>I don't think it shows him being unkind at all - quite the reverse, he's
>obviously given her free rein to spend his money how she liked, and then
>realised that her tastes were more expensive than he could keep up with.
>Especially as we still have what seems to be the reliquary-pendant in
>question, and it must have cost a bomb (and not only did it cost a bomb but
>somebody, probably her, dropped the bloody thing while out riding). And his
>mother's history of extravagance must have made him nervous that his ma in
>law just wasn't going to stop - and even so, iirc he wasn't actually being
>*nasty* about it, just a bit exasperated. I suspect if he'd had a Facebook
>page his emotional status would have been "ratty" quite a lot of the time.
>
>Generally speaking, any situation in which Richard appears to have behaved
>badly is amenable to other interpretation if you examine it carefully. I'm
>sure for example that I can't be the first person to have spotted that a
>message could and almost certainly would have reached Richard overnight at
>Stony Stratford, telling him that the reason Anthony Woodville had been
>wineing and dining him was to keep him away from London while the Queen
>Dowager half-inched the Great Royal Seal, and that he arrested the Woodville
>faction in the morning because they had behaved treacherously to him, rather
>than vice versa.
>
>One that interests me is that there was a court case during the Tudor era in
>which a memo from Richard to one of the Pastons was producedd in evidence.
>It sounds at first sight to have been very unpleasant and threatening, and
>the court took it as such - it said something to the effect that Paston must
>do as he was being told "or it will cost him that he holds dearest".
>
>But the Pastons were close friends with the York boys, and we know from the
>Buckingham postscript that Richard at least sometimes used "him that" where
>he should have said "him who", so the note is open to two completely
>different interpretations:
>
>"Do as I say or the king my brother will deprive you of the thing you hold
>dearest."
>
>"Do as I say otherwise the king my brother, whom I know you love dearly,
>will lose out as a result."
>
>
>
>
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> bible and was not heretical in the least.

The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
heavily punished.

I guess Richard just liked to read in English. Or secret heretic??!Just a tiny gap in the curtain to the real man. Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>
> The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> heavily punished.
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> We can be REASONABLY sure that self preservation was THEN as now a
> strong motive for acting in a given way. Richard, having seen his father,
> his YOUNG brother summarily executed and his older brother Clarence killed
> in some premature way. As a result he may well have behaved in ways
> towards members of the Woodville clan & Hastings that we find difficult to
> fully fathom at this distance.

Yes, but we don't have to assume that he acted in any way we would now find
hard to fathom, because his itinerary (if accurate) shows that the day they
all met at Stony Stratford was the same day Elizabeth appropriated the Seal.
Richard must surely have already sent messengers ahead to tell his/his
mother's servants in London that his party would be arriving in a few days -
he wouldn't just turn up with 600 knights and all their servants and baggage
and expect them to be fed and accommodated on the fly - so there would be
loyal supporters in London who knew he was on the road, and Stony Stratford
is only 40 miles from London. A message could *and would* have reached him
during the night after the dinner party, and he would assume, almost
certainly correctly, that Anthony Woodville's hospitality was feigned and
designed to keep him out of London until the Woodville faction had completed
their coup. Then he acted in a perfectly intelligible way in which any
political or military leader in a similar position would react today, and
arrested them - probably with an extra helping of anger because they had
made a dupe of him and he had actually thought, for one brief evening, that
it was all going to be OK and that the Woodvilles were going to be
civilised.

The messenger wouldn't even have to know what road he was coming by. There
were only a limited number of possible routes, so a messenger would be sent
along each road until one of them found him.

> We ALSO need to remember this was a man whose own wife & son had recently
> both died,

Nah, that didn't happen until a year or so into his reign.

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I guess Richard just liked to read in English. Or secret heretic??!Just a
> tiny gap in the curtain to the real man. Maire.

Yes. It wasn't *quite* heretical any more, but it was still outré enough to
show that he was a free-thinker.

Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link it, just tell me what newspaper. Thank you. Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > I guess Richard just liked to read in English. Or secret heretic??!Just a
> > tiny gap in the curtain to the real man. Maire.
>
> Yes. It wasn't *quite* heretical any more, but it was still outré enough to
> show that he was a free-thinker.
>

But  these are suppositions Claire and that is not history . Until we find documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup? If we did life defending Richard would be a lot easier. They're known as primary sources and we don't have them. Hence 500 years' of speculation. Arthur's suppositions about Richard's state of mind (and he omits to mention what happened to another Duke of Gloucester) have as much foundation in truth as yours.  H



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:35
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> We can be REASONABLY sure that self preservation was THEN as now a
> strong motive for acting in a given way. Richard, having seen his father,
> his YOUNG brother summarily executed and his older brother Clarence killed
> in some premature way. As a result he may well have behaved in ways
> towards members of the Woodville clan & Hastings that we find difficult to
> fully fathom at this distance.

Yes, but we don't have to assume that he acted in any way we would now find
hard to fathom, because his itinerary (if accurate) shows that the day they
all met at Stony Stratford was the same day Elizabeth appropriated the Seal.
Richard must surely have already sent messengers ahead to tell his/his
mother's servants in London that his party would be arriving in a few days -
he wouldn't just turn up with 600 knights and all their servants and baggage
and expect them to be fed and accommodated on the fly - so there would be
loyal supporters in London who knew he was on the road, and Stony Stratford
is only 40 miles from London. A message could *and would* have reached him
during the night after the dinner party, and he would assume, almost
certainly correctly, that Anthony Woodville's hospitality was feigned and
designed to keep him out of London until the Woodville faction had completed
their coup. Then he acted in a perfectly intelligible way in which any
political or military leader in a similar position would react today, and
arrested them - probably with an extra helping of anger because they had
made a dupe of him and he had actually thought, for one brief evening, that
it was all going to be OK and that the Woodvilles were going to be
civilised.

The messenger wouldn't even have to know what road he was coming by. There
were only a limited number of possible routes, so a messenger would be sent
along each road until one of them found him.

> We ALSO need to remember this was a man whose own wife & son had recently
> both died,

Nah, that didn't happen until a year or so into his reign.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>
> The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> heavily punished.
>

Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.

I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!

Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>
> The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> heavily punished.
>

Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.

I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!

I don't know about you, though I have a second language it is always easier
for me to read in my native tongue and Richard may have simply wanted to
have a deeper understanding of what he was reading, especially Latin as
there are many different ways to achieve a translation, but not necessarily
what was intended.

The Bible presents many translation problems and is still very open to
scholarship.



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article





I guess Richard just liked to read in English. Or secret heretic??!Just a
tiny gap in the curtain to the real man. Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>
> The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological

> content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> heavily punished.
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> But these are suppositions Claire and that is not history . Until we find
> documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what
> happened. Have we got the messages at either end, do we have proof the
> Woodville's were planning a coup?

Yes. Actually I might be wrong about them taking the Seal because I can't
find the reference now, but they certainly took a substantial part of the
treasure and made off with it, in advance of Richard's arrival. Here's the
section from Richard's itinerary:

by 28 Apr. Edward V, Rivers and party reached Stony Stratford. (Rowse
p.259)

29 Apr. - Edward V and party arrived at Northampton. Richard and
party arrived a few

hours after, as did Buckingham. (Legge & Coronation
pp.15-6)

- Dorset rifled the Treasury. The Woodville fleet set sail.
(P.M.K.p.180)

30 Apr. - Rivers was arrested at first light. (P.M.K.p.176)

- Richard and Buckingham rode hard for Stony Stratford. (ibid.)

- At nearly midnight, Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset got news of the
events at

Stony Stratford and Northampton. Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary at
Westminster. (P.M.K.pp.178-9)


I'd have to check Kendall to find out what *his* sources are, but he's a
sober writer - it's not likely he made it up. Though I see, which I had
forgotten, that they actually foregathered at Northampton, which stretches
it a bit because it's about 65 miles by road from London rather than 40.
But you can see the passage of messages towards London, so there's every
reason to think there could *and would* have been messengers the other way.

First light would be around 4:15am so say a messenger set out at 5am from
Northampton, and they reached the Queen Dowager at about 11:30pm, that's
18½ hours. Which is surprisingly slow - 65 miles ought to take about 11
hours at a brisk trot, changing horses somewhere along the way, although
that would depend to some extent on how muddy it was.

I have to fish Kendall out and see if he says what time of day the Treasury
was rifled, but if it was obvious by about 10am that the Woodvilles were
staging a coup or robbery an 18½-hour message could have reached Richard by
first light, and in fact that's surprisingly slow. Assumingly the roads
weren't totally awash I would have thought a message leaving London at 3pm
could reach Richard by 4am, easily.

The increased distance make the receipt of a message from London less
certain, but it's still very possible. If you're going to argue that a
message *didn't* reach him - and that he therefore spontaneously turned on
the Woodville faction after dining pleasantly with them the night before -
then you have to think of reasons why his communication system was less good
than the Queen's, or why nobody in London would care about him enough to
warn him.

I'm sure Arthurian is right that there was an element of self-preservation
in his decision to accept the throne, because he must have known that the
situation with the Woodvilles put himself and his family in danger, and
being in charge might seem like a good way of getting on top of that. But
there's no reason to assume that his seemingly treacherous behaviour at
Northampton - dining politely with Anthony Woodville in the evening and then
suddenly arresting him in the morning - was motivated by anything other than
a sudden realisation that Woodville was stitching him up.

Hilary Jones wrote:
//snip//
"He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
know what that means..."
//snip//

Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
(Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
that's what's happening here.
Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
that gets us any forrader.
Doug

pansydobersby wrote:

"Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also
the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which
were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since
Oldcastle's rebellion.
I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I
don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret
heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of
different views - but it does say something. And that's the really
intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not
knowing what that something is!"

If I remember correctly, it was the Lancastrian kings that had the Wycliffe
Bible declared heretical and the Lollards to be seditious.
The "heresy" was as much the English meaings Wycliffe gave to the Latin
words when he did his translation. Apparently HIS English translations
weren't in complete agreement with what the RC heirarchy thought the Latin
meant. I understand there's still some discussion on that...
The seditious part was due to the Lancastrian monarchs deeming the
translation to be an attack on their rule which, to an extent, it was.
Imagine, everyday people having opinions on religion! Next thing one knows,
they'll consider themselves equals to the king!
The Lancastrians were only off by about five and a half centuries. Worry
worts!
Doug

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> First light would be around 4:15am so say a messenger set out at 5am from
Northampton, and they reached the Queen Dowager at about 11:30pm, that's
18½ hours. Which is surprisingly slow - 65 miles ought to take about 11
hours at a brisk trot, changing horses somewhere along the way, although
that would depend to some extent on how muddy it was.

Actually (after thinking about it in the shower!) there's a reason why the
message going to the Queen would go slowly, and one going to Richard would
go faster. *If* Richard's supporters in London knew that he was, or was
likely to be, travelling with Anthony Woodville, then they would also know
that he was potentially in danger and that Woodville might turn on him to
prevent him finding out what had happened in London (assuming that Anthony
was in on what Dorset was doing, or that Richard's men would think that he
was).

On the other hand, it wasn't news to the Queen that Richard was going to be
unhappy when he found out that her son had emptied the Treasury, and she
wasn't personally in danger from Richard until he arrived in London, and he
was still two or three days' ride (at normal procession speed rather than
messenger speed) away, so the Queen's messenger wouldn't have such a great
need for urgency.

Again, it's a little chink in the dark about Richard. For me, everything he does seems to fascinate me.

It's interesting about the medieval church. It's not much different from my very conservative upbringing among New York City Irish-American Catholic immigrants who absolutely never read the Bible - we thought anyone who studied the Bible either "Prods" (Protestants) or "Bible thumpers." Maire.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
>
> "Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also
> the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which
> were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since
> Oldcastle's rebellion.
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I
> don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret
> heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of
> different views - but it does say something. And that's the really
> intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not
> knowing what that something is!"
>
> If I remember correctly, it was the Lancastrian kings that had the Wycliffe
> Bible declared heretical and the Lollards to be seditious.
> The "heresy" was as much the English meaings Wycliffe gave to the Latin
> words when he did his translation. Apparently HIS English translations
> weren't in complete agreement with what the RC heirarchy thought the Latin
> meant. I understand there's still some discussion on that...
> The seditious part was due to the Lancastrian monarchs deeming the
> translation to be an attack on their rule which, to an extent, it was.
> Imagine, everyday people having opinions on religion! Next thing one knows,
> they'll consider themselves equals to the king!
> The Lancastrians were only off by about five and a half centuries. Worry
> worts!
> Doug
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it
> does,
then Smethon seems, to me anyway,

To me, too. The logical progression seems to be "even though he is not
pleased by her extravagance, nevertheless she will be..."

Which also, btw, suggests that Richard's displeasure wasn't something she
needed to be scared of, or that would even interfere with her spending what
she liked. He is grumbling, rather than being overbearing.

Carol,
I saw a spot on the news this morning about snow in Tucson, and thought of you
Vickie

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 
[snip]
>
> There's a story told about him - I don't remember the source - that the night before Bosworth he refused to have mass said for his victory, because he said that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win whether he said mass or not, and if it *wasn't* God's will that he should win then it would be blasphemous to pray for victory. I hope this is true, because if so it shows a clear, logical, independent and intelligent mind.

Carol responds:

It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession, probably the morning of Bosworth rather than the night before. John Ashdown-Hill discusses the topic in "The Last Days of Richard III."

Now to take a last look at all that cold white stuff coating the ground and trees and cacti before the sun goes down. . . .

Carol

Yes Doug. H5 was particularly good at burning Lollards.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


pansydobersby wrote:

"Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also
the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which
were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since
Oldcastle's rebellion.
I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I
don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret
heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of
different views - but it does say something. And that's the really
intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not
knowing what that something is!"

If I remember correctly, it was the Lancastrian kings that had the Wycliffe
Bible declared heretical and the Lollards to be seditious.
The "heresy" was as much the English meaings Wycliffe gave to the Latin
words when he did his translation. Apparently HIS English translations
weren't in complete agreement with what the RC heirarchy thought the Latin
meant. I understand there's still some discussion on that...
The seditious part was due to the Lancastrian monarchs deeming the
translation to be an attack on their rule which, to an extent, it was.
Imagine, everyday people having opinions on religion! Next thing one knows,
they'll consider themselves equals to the king!
The Lancastrians were only off by about five and a half centuries. Worry
worts!
Doug

Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners, 
{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>From: Ishita Bandyo
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>> each other!
>
>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
> "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
> it, just tell me what newspaper.

The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to
be this post by Hilary Jones:

"On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind
to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her
servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and
she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death,
despite her retreat. "

I think it's whether Richard just wanted everyone to have accessto/understand the Bible in English or whether he was going down the full Lollard route which was direct line to God without the intercession of the Church ie the core of Protestantism (but I'm no theologian). My guess was, it was the former. Just as with the Law he wanted the common man to be able to understand it. I've never heard him talked on as a reformist. But that's just me of course. H 



________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 



Again, it's a little chink in the dark about Richard. For me, everything he does seems to fascinate me.

It's interesting about the medieval church. It's not much different from my very conservative upbringing among New York City Irish-American Catholic immigrants who absolutely never read the Bible - we thought anyone who studied the Bible either "Prods" (Protestants) or "Bible thumpers." Maire.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
>
> "Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also
> the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which
> were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since
> Oldcastle's rebellion.
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I
> don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret
> heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of
> different views - but it does say something. And that's the really
> intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not
> knowing what that something is!"
>
> If I remember correctly, it was the Lancastrian kings that had the Wycliffe
> Bible declared heretical and the Lollards to be seditious.
> The "heresy" was as much the English meaings Wycliffe gave to the Latin
> words when he did his translation. Apparently HIS English translations
> weren't in complete agreement with what the RC heirarchy thought the Latin
> meant. I understand there's still some discussion on that...
> The seditious part was due to the Lancastrian monarchs deeming the
> translation to be an attack on their rule which, to an extent, it was.
> Imagine, everyday people having opinions on religion! Next thing one knows,
> they'll consider themselves equals to the king!
> The Lancastrians were only off by about five and a half centuries. Worry
> worts!
> Doug
>

Ask George  H



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners, 
{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>From: Ishita Bandyo
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>> each other!
>
>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,

Yes. And even in the 1940s my mother had a boyfriend from Yorkshire who
mentioned "Good King Dick" as a proverbially good thing, but when she asked
him about it he just smiled, as if it was a communal Yorkshire secret, and
didn't explain.

Don't think it was this one. I think it was something from Ishita which started this off but about 200 messages ago.  Yahoo going mad!  H



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:43
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
> "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
> it, just tell me what newspaper.

The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to
be this post by Hilary Jones:

"On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind
to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her
servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and
she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death,
despite her retreat. "

I was talking about messengers and your assumption that the time of Richard's arrival had been nofitied to London.  PMK is a secondary source. He says in his appendix that much of what he writes here is based on conjecture, Mancini (who is questionable) and the Croyland Chronicle (which is questionable), even bits of More. That's not historical evidence. A lot of the stuff about Elizabeth and Dorset also seems to be based on Mancini and others on here will tell you he had an axe to grind. PMK is pro-Richard but not a historian and his bias can be damaging when judged by other historians. If we had had hard evidence (such as a will naming Richard as Protector) then the whole Richard debate would have been much easier to solve. Until we do, everything we put forward is open to challenge; it's a long uphill road. 
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> But these are suppositions Claire and that is not history . Until we find
> documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what
> happened. Have we got the messages at either end, do we have proof the
> Woodville's were planning a coup?

Yes. Actually I might be wrong about them taking the Seal because I can't
find the reference now, but they certainly took a substantial part of the
treasure and made off with it, in advance of Richard's arrival. Here's the
section from Richard's itinerary:

by 28 Apr. Edward V, Rivers and party reached Stony Stratford. (Rowse
p.259)

29 Apr. - Edward V and party arrived at Northampton. Richard and
party arrived a few

hours after, as did Buckingham. (Legge & Coronation
pp.15-6)

- Dorset rifled the Treasury. The Woodville fleet set sail.
(P.M.K.p.180)

30 Apr. - Rivers was arrested at first light. (P.M.K.p.176)

- Richard and Buckingham rode hard for Stony Stratford. (ibid.)

- At nearly midnight, Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset got news of the
events at

Stony Stratford and Northampton. Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary at
Westminster. (P.M.K.pp.178-9)

I'd have to check Kendall to find out what *his* sources are, but he's a
sober writer - it's not likely he made it up. Though I see, which I had
forgotten, that they actually foregathered at Northampton, which stretches
it a bit because it's about 65 miles by road from London rather than 40.
But you can see the passage of messages towards London, so there's every
reason to think there could *and would* have been messengers the other way.

First light would be around 4:15am so say a messenger set out at 5am from
Northampton, and they reached the Queen Dowager at about 11:30pm, that's
18½ hours. Which is surprisingly slow - 65 miles ought to take about 11
hours at a brisk trot, changing horses somewhere along the way, although
that would depend to some extent on how muddy it was.

I have to fish Kendall out and see if he says what time of day the Treasury
was rifled, but if it was obvious by about 10am that the Woodvilles were
staging a coup or robbery an 18½-hour message could have reached Richard by
first light, and in fact that's surprisingly slow. Assumingly the roads
weren't totally awash I would have thought a message leaving London at 3pm
could reach Richard by 4am, easily.

The increased distance make the receipt of a message from London less
certain, but it's still very possible. If you're going to argue that a
message *didn't* reach him - and that he therefore spontaneously turned on
the Woodville faction after dining pleasantly with them the night before -
then you have to think of reasons why his communication system was less good
than the Queen's, or why nobody in London would care about him enough to
warn him.

I'm sure Arthurian is right that there was an element of self-preservation
in his decision to accept the throne, because he must have known that the
situation with the Woodvilles put himself and his family in danger, and
being in charge might seem like a good way of getting on top of that. But
there's no reason to assume that his seemingly treacherous behaviour at
Northampton - dining politely with Anthony Woodville in the evening and then
suddenly arresting him in the morning - was motivated by anything other than
a sudden realisation that Woodville was stitching him up.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
>
> "Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also
> the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which
> were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since
> Oldcastle's rebellion.
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I
> don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret
> heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of
> different views - but it does say something. And that's the really
> intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not
> knowing what that something is!"
>
> If I remember correctly, it was the Lancastrian kings that had the Wycliffe
> Bible declared heretical and the Lollards to be seditious.
> The "heresy" was as much the English meaings Wycliffe gave to the Latin
> words when he did his translation. Apparently HIS English translations
> weren't in complete agreement with what the RC heirarchy thought the Latin
> meant. I understand there's still some discussion on that...
> The seditious part was due to the Lancastrian monarchs deeming the
> translation to be an attack on their rule which, to an extent, it was.
> Imagine, everyday people having opinions on religion! Next thing one knows,
> they'll consider themselves equals to the king!
> The Lancastrians were only off by about five and a half centuries. Worry
> worts!
> Doug
>

Correct me if I'm wrong (the 14th century is far from being my area of expertise), but didn't the actual persecution of Lollards start after the Peasants' Revolt?

The very act of translating the Bible was naturally controversial in itself, but I think the bigger problem was the Lollards' other controversial views (challenging the authority of the Church in many ways) + the movement's association with seditious movements for social justice => a dangerous mixture. The vernacular Bible became a convenient symbol for all the other controversies surrounding it.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's whether Richard just wanted everyone to have accessto/understand the Bible in English or whether he was going down the full Lollard route which was direct line to God without the intercession of the Church ie the core of Protestantism (but I'm no theologian). My guess was, it was the former. Just as with the Law he wanted the common man to be able to understand it. I've never heard him talked on as a reformist. But that's just me of course. H 
>
>

I think the former, as well.

I do get the feeling that he was unusually tolerant for his time and saw religious faith as something essentially private, but that brings us back to those pesky little nuggets of information again... everybody interprets them their own way.

Yes I often don't think we celebrate that side of him enough. 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 16:24
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think it's whether Richard just wanted everyone to have accessto/understand the Bible in English or whether he was going down the full Lollard route which was direct line to God without the intercession of the Church ie the core of Protestantism (but I'm no theologian). My guess was, it was the former. Just as with the Law he wanted the common man to be able to understand it. I've never heard him talked on as a reformist. But that's just me of course. H 
>
>

I think the former, as well.

I do get the feeling that he was unusually tolerant for his time and saw religious faith as something essentially private, but that brings us back to those pesky little nuggets of information again... everybody interprets them their own way.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I was talking about messengers and your assumption that the time of
> Richard's arrival had been nofitied to London.

Well that's just practical. It seems unlikely they would all be carrying
ten days' worth of food with them, so they'd have to buy food as they went,
and have somewhere to kip. It was a very large party which means they
couldn't just turn up unannounced and expect to be fed - they'd have to have
messengers moving one and preferably two or three days ahead of the party,
warning inns along the way to lay in supplies to feed them. They'd done
York to Northampton, 120 miles as the crow flies and longer than that "as
hounds ran" in six days, so they were advancing at about 20-30 miles a day,
so although not certain it's extremely likely that an advance message would
already have reached London.

Arthur

In response to Modern Yorkshireman existing&&&&&&I have absolutely no idea what you mean?

I consider myself a (modern)Yorkshireman born in Leeds brought up in Sandal Magna Nr. Wakefield , once I discovered electricity and clothing ( wode was decidedly uncomfortable) I ended up at Leeds Uni. then Cambridge if I remember correctly both institutions had books.

Having served with the RN ( we managed to understand nuclear propulsion) prior to moving to the USA I lived in London and had very little problems being assimilated into this collective. I ended up in silicon valley where they also have electricity , though little understanding of beer.



George



(Somewhat tongue in cheek)



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article





Ask George H

________________________________
From: Arthurian lancastrian@... <mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,
{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> >
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
>From: Ishita Bandyo
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>> each other!
>
>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>

http://unromanticrichardiii.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/anne-beauchamps-gold-tablet.html
 
I did a google and found this for you.  H


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

Do you know where I can find the letter? Online sources I mean.
And I will try to locate the post from November.... Not a mean task that!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "hjnatdat" mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's Pollard quoting from a letter of 1478 from William Smethon a landowner in the service of Richard Clervaux a landowner of Middleham which says that the Countess of Warwick has made a great table of gold and that my Lord Gloucester is not pleased.
>
> Pollard leaps on to conclude this is the Middleham Jewel - though why she would commission a jewel which is about childbirth at this stage in her life I for one would question. And he has to admit he doesn't really know or what the table of gold is. He does say she is believed to belong to the sect of St Penket, an obscure whirling saint - which is the bit I must have remembered.
>
> No other record of supposed spending H
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, I don't remember the exact reference, but Ishita obviously knows it. It was to do with her commissioning a locket-type reliquary which is almost certainly the Middleham Jewel, and Richard wrote a rather irritated letter to one of his admin. staff at Middleham saying, in effect, "Do try to stop her from ordering any more holy relics before she bankrupts me." [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hm. I'm unfamiliar with that letter. I'll check "The Road to Bosworth" tonight to see if it's there. Meanwhile, if anyone can quote from the letter or find a link to it, I'd appreciate it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

You need to look at him on http://www.britannica.com/, it's too complex to explain here. But for info there is a memorial to him in Leicester Cathedral. Lutterworth where he lived is about 4 miles up the road from me.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 3:06
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
>
> Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> his refusing to have mass said for victory.
>
>

I took a look at the Middleham jewel and could not find the R-A inscription. But the article Pansy linked to, is really informative.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:18 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > Unless I'm very much mistaken, this crescent pendant with the initials 'R'
> > and 'A' bears the inscription 'a vous plaisir' which makes it a pretty
> > typical love token of the time.
>
> Right, ta, so the R&A is on a different piece of jewellery, not the
> Middleham Jewel, and therefore don't preclude the Middleham Jewel from being
> the expensive piece commissioned by the Countess of Warwick.
>
>

And I think he took his coronation oath in English.
From all these little nuggets it seems he was a free thinker and a progressive sort who was proud of being an English man.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> > > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > > bible and was not heretical in the least.
> >
> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> > until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> > content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> > wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> > heavily punished.
> >
>
> Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.
>
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!
>
>
>
>

The Countess is " robbing" him blind with her clandestine spending? Lololol .

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> //snip//
> "He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
> know what that means..."
> //snip//
>
> Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
> then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
> isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
> something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
> (Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
> same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
> that's what's happening here.
> Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
> that gets us any forrader.
> Doug
>
>

Seems that is a common thread from the beginning of time&&

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



The Countess is " robbing" him blind with her clandestine spending? Lololol .

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> //snip//
> "He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
> know what that means..."
> //snip//
>
> Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
> then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
> isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
> something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
> (Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
> same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
> that's what's happening here.
> Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
> that gets us any forrader.
> Doug
>
>

It stated with Cicely, went on to countess and now is on bible! Hahaha

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Don't think it was this one. I think it was something from Ishita which started this off but about 200 messages ago. Yahoo going mad! H
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:43
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
> > "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
> > it, just tell me what newspaper.
>
> The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to
> be this post by Hilary Jones:
>
> "On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind
> to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her
> servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and
> she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death,
> despite her retreat. "
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. Which Pollard book are you referring to? The only one I have is the one on R III and the "Princes in the Tower," in which he expresses belief in Rous's allegation that Richard kept the Countess a prisoner between 1473 (when he rescued her from sanctuary and brought her home to Middleham!) and his death in 1485. Are you talking about a different Pollard (A. F. rather than A. J.) or a different book? The book I have shows Pollard holding a strongly traditionalist anti-Richard stance. He seems to have mellowed a bit in his old age despite still thinking that Richard killed his nephews ("I'd have done" in the documentary).

Can you provide a page number or possibly quote this letter?

Carol

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> And I think he took his coronation oath in English.
From all these little nuggets it seems he was a free thinker and a
progressive sort who was proud of being an English man.

Or possibly - let us be honest - really bad at learning foreign languages.

Arthur wrote:
>
>   We can be REASONABLY sure that self preservation was THEN as now a strong motive for acting in a given way. Richard, having seen his father, his YOUNG brother summarily executed and his older brother Clarence killed in some premature way. As a result he may well have behaved in ways towards members of the Woodville clan & Hastings that we find difficult to fully fathom at this distance. [snip]

Carol responds:

I may be misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be saying that Richard witnessed the execution of his father and his "young" brother, Edmund and somehow connected those executions with Hastings and the Woodvilles. But Richard was eight years old and certainly not present at the Battle of Wakefield during or after which his father and seventeen-year-old brother died. (Shakespeare, following Hall, has Richard fighting in this battle and Edmund of Rutland a child of twelve, but since Richard was born in 1452 and Edmund in 1443, even traditionalist historians have to discard this version of "history.") Yes, Edmund was young, but he wasn't nearly as young as Richard.

Neither Hastings (already Edward's friend and a staunch Yorkist) nor the Woodvilles (admittedly Lancastrian at the time) had anything to do with the deaths of the Duke of York and the Earl of Rutland.

George of Clarence, of course, is another matter altogether, and Richard does seem to have blamed the Woodvilles (but not Hastings) for that brother's execution.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

Carol

No. Edward and Warwick spoke fluent French they were commended by Louis XI. and spoke with him without interpreters.  There's no reason to think Richard wasn't equally good at languages


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 19:17
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> And I think he took his coronation oath in English.
From all these little nuggets it seems he was a free thinker and a
progressive sort who was proud of being an English man.

Or possibly - let us be honest - really bad at learning foreign languages.

I never wrote about exceptionally good article - which one was it? Cecily slipped in a few posts later. Bless Yahoo!



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 18:06
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


 

It stated with Cicely, went on to countess and now is on bible! Hahaha

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Don't think it was this one. I think it was something from Ishita which started this off but about 200 messages ago. Yahoo going mad! H
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:43
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
> > "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
> > it, just tell me what newspaper.
>
> The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to
> be this post by Hilary Jones:
>
> "On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind
> to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her
> servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and
> she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death,
> despite her retreat. "
>
>
>
>

Maire wrote:
> The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and heavily punished.

Carol responds:

The Lancastrians occasionally burned heretics; the Yorkists never did. We see the Tudors also performing executions related to religion once Henry VIII established the Anglican church (and Mary I reestablished Catholicism). But Richard's possession of a Wycliffe Bible suggests a different, more tolerant attitude. He was certainly in favor of religious reform in terms of eliminating corruption within the Church and having the priests set an example of clean living, but he had no other proto-Protestant leanings to my knowledge. He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have (anachronistically) made him out to be (he took pleasure in music and pageantry, whether religious or secular), and he would have scrupulously observed all religious rituals and requirements, including the daily celebration of Mass.

Carol

A  J - he who testified for the prosecution in the 1984 trial and who was on the recent programme.  Fellow of  Uni of Teeside. It must be an article he wrote, I can't track it down but it's on the web in a few places. Here's one
 
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/annebeauchamp.html
 
there are others.
 
Can't find it on the NA site but have no reason to doubt.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 18:23
Subject: Countess of Warwick's extravagance (Was: Exceptionally good article)

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. Which Pollard book are you referring to? The only one I have is the one on R III and the "Princes in the Tower," in which he expresses belief in Rous's allegation that Richard kept the Countess a prisoner between 1473 (when he rescued her from sanctuary and brought her home to Middleham!) and his death in 1485. Are you talking about a different Pollard (A. F. rather than A. J.) or a different book? The book I have shows Pollard holding a strongly traditionalist anti-Richard stance. He seems to have mellowed a bit in his old age despite still thinking that Richard killed his nephews ("I'd have done" in the documentary).

Can you provide a page number or possibly quote this letter?

Carol

My theory about the rob' ho'? The Countess was once again determined to play the role of Robin Hood in their amateur production at the May Games, despite her son-in-laws vehement opposition. I suspect there were bitter arguments because Richard was tired of playing a non-speaking role - a page-boy, a prison guard, and as a final humiliation, a tree - for three years in a row. He was particularly bitter that the Countess was in charge of the casting, the director AND got to play the leading role, though he footed the bill for the sets and costumes. Anne thought he was being childish and silly with his complaints - but then she *would*, wouldn't she, as she always got to play Maid Marian.

;)



--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The Countess is " robbing" him blind with her clandestine spending? Lololol .
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > //snip//
> > "He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
> > know what that means..."
> > //snip//
> >
> > Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
> > then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
> > isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
> > something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
> > (Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
> > same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
> > that's what's happening here.
> > Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
> > that gets us any forrader.
> > Doug
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I don't think Richard would have known what a Protestant was. The essence of Protestantism is that there is no intermediary between the individual and God. That was VERY threatening to the Church. There's nothing insofar as I can see from Richard's books etc that indicates that he was about to abandon the Virgin and the Saints and be in direct communication with God.

Much more that he wanted people to understand what they believed and what the laws said. And he certainly wouldn't have wanted masses said for the dead if he'd believed there was no purgatory. H.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and heavily punished.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The Lancastrians occasionally burned heretics; the Yorkists never did. We see the Tudors also performing executions related to religion once Henry VIII established the Anglican church (and Mary I reestablished Catholicism). But Richard's possession of a Wycliffe Bible suggests a different, more tolerant attitude. He was certainly in favor of religious reform in terms of eliminating corruption within the Church and having the priests set an example of clean living, but he had no other proto-Protestant leanings to my knowledge. He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have (anachronistically) made him out to be (he took pleasure in music and pageantry, whether religious or secular), and he would have scrupulously observed all religious rituals and requirements, including the daily celebration of Mass.
>
> Carol
>

Hilarious!!! Maybe the countess wanted him to play the Sheriff of Nottingham!

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

On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:27 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> My theory about the rob' ho'? The Countess was once again determined to play the role of Robin Hood in their amateur production at the May Games, despite her son-in-laws vehement opposition. I suspect there were bitter arguments because Richard was tired of playing a non-speaking role - a page-boy, a prison guard, and as a final humiliation, a tree - for three years in a row. He was particularly bitter that the Countess was in charge of the casting, the director AND got to play the leading role, though he footed the bill for the sets and costumes. Anne thought he was being childish and silly with his complaints - but then she *would*, wouldn't she, as she always got to play Maid Marian.
>
> ;)
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > The Countess is " robbing" him blind with her clandestine spending? Lololol .
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > //snip//
> > > "He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
> > > know what that means..."
> > > //snip//
> > >
> > > Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
> > > then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
> > > isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
> > > something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
> > > (Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
> > > same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
> > > that's what's happening here.
> > > Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
> > > that gets us any forrader.
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Lovely - but I think the best prognosis from Pollard is that it is a house used by the St Penket sect 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 19:27
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

My theory about the rob' ho'? The Countess was once again determined to play the role of Robin Hood in their amateur production at the May Games, despite her son-in-laws vehement opposition. I suspect there were bitter arguments because Richard was tired of playing a non-speaking role - a page-boy, a prison guard, and as a final humiliation, a tree - for three years in a row. He was particularly bitter that the Countess was in charge of the casting, the director AND got to play the leading role, though he footed the bill for the sets and costumes. Anne thought he was being childish and silly with his complaints - but then she *would*, wouldn't she, as she always got to play Maid Marian.

;)

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> The Countess is " robbing" him blind with her clandestine spending? Lololol .
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > //snip//
> > "He adds 'And yit my lady shall be rob' ho' this season.' Pollard does not
> > know what that means..."
> > //snip//
> >
> > Does this sentence follow directly "...my lord is not pleased."? If it does,
> > then Smethon seems, to me anyway, to be saying that even though Richard
> > isn't pleased with the Countess' spending, the Countess will still be doing
> > something that costs money (distributing largess?) during the coming season
> > (Christmas?, Easter?). Medieval sentence construction and the use of
> > same/similar words with different meanings sometimes baffles me! Perhaps
> > that's what's happening here.
> > Another possible meaning for "rob'" might be "robed", but I don't see how
> > that gets us any forrader.
> > Doug
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> No. Edward and Warwick spoke fluent French they were commended by Louis
> XI. and spoke with him without interpreters. There's no reason to think
> Richard wasn't equally good at languages

The ability to learn foreign languages is something innate which you either
have or you haven't, and if you haven't, teaching doesn't make much
difference. I was top or near top of the class at school in nearly every
subject - but I actually managed to get two per cent in a Modern Greek exam,
mainly for having spelled my own name right.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have
> (anachronistically) made him out to be

I always found Kendall's take on Richard as a person wooden and unconvincing
for this reason. His
Richard doesn't sound at all like the sparky, bouncy, slightly excitable
little bloke von Poppelau liked so much. Kendall is, perversely, much more
interesting - and much more fun - in the section on Henry at the back of the
book.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > No. Edward and Warwick spoke fluent French they were commended by Louis
> > XI. and spoke with him without interpreters. There's no reason to think
> > Richard wasn't equally good at languages
>
> The ability to learn foreign languages is something innate which you either
> have or you haven't, and if you haven't, teaching doesn't make much
> difference. I was top or near top of the class at school in nearly every
> subject - but I actually managed to get two per cent in a Modern Greek exam,
> mainly for having spelled my own name right.
>


The ability to learn foreign languages tends to run in families, though, the way that musical ability does - of course it's possible that one sibling might be tone-deaf while others are talented musicians, but it's far more likely that the brother of a talented musician has at least some musical ability himself. Same with foreign languages.

(Pronunciation, at least, is actually linked to musical ability.)

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> My theory about the rob' ho'? The Countess was once again determined to
> play the role of Robin Hood in their amateur production at the May Games,
> despite her son-in-laws vehement opposition. I suspect there were bitter
> arguments because Richard was tired of playing a non-speaking role - a
> page-boy, a prison guard, and as a final humiliation, a tree -

I could definitely see him as Alan a' Dale in indecently tight tights, and
as a nobleman of the era he probably *could* play the lute and sing....

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I don't think Richard would have known what a Protestant was. The essence
> of Protestantism is that there is no intermediary between the individual
> and God. That was VERY threatening to the Church. There's nothing insofar
> as I can see from Richard's books etc that indicates that he was about to
> abandon the Virgin and the Saints and be in direct communication with God.

Something that interests me is that there's a distinct possibility Henry
Tudor was a Templar wannabee. There was a revival of interest in the
Templars in France at the time afaik, and King Louis himself probably took
an interest. Henry supposedly caused his knights to ride through London two
to a horse to show the newfound unity between York and Lancaster, but he
must at the least have known that two knights on one horse was the symbol of
the Templars and have at the least been playing with the symbolism. Tending
to dress in inexpensive clothes would also fit.

Or, if the story about the two knights was added later, then somembody added
a Templar symbol to Henry's story, which is almost as suggestive.

Or maybe Henry was to cheap to provide a horse per person( sniggering)!

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

On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:08 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: hjnatdat
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > I don't think Richard would have known what a Protestant was. The essence
> > of Protestantism is that there is no intermediary between the individual
> > and God. That was VERY threatening to the Church. There's nothing insofar
> > as I can see from Richard's books etc that indicates that he was about to
> > abandon the Virgin and the Saints and be in direct communication with God.
>
> Something that interests me is that there's a distinct possibility Henry
> Tudor was a Templar wannabee. There was a revival of interest in the
> Templars in France at the time afaik, and King Louis himself probably took
> an interest. Henry supposedly caused his knights to ride through London two
> to a horse to show the newfound unity between York and Lancaster, but he
> must at the least have known that two knights on one horse was the symbol of
> the Templars and have at the least been playing with the symbolism. Tending
> to dress in inexpensive clothes would also fit.
>
> Or, if the story about the two knights was added later, then somembody added
> a Templar symbol to Henry's story, which is almost as suggestive.
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> The ability to learn foreign languages tends to run in families, though,
> the way that musical ability does - of course it's possible that one
> sibling might be tone-deaf while others are talented musicians, but it's
> far more likely that the brother of a talented musician has at least some
> musical ability himself. Same with foreign languages.

Eee - maybe, although my mother is tolerably good at foreign languages and
my father spoke multiple dialects of Chinese and, apparently, Polish as
well.

I'm from Yorkshire and in no way consider myself modern. Perish the thought.

I was born in the West Riding (which is now in South Yorkshire), moved to the East Riding (which is now in North Yorkshire), and then moved to Humberside (which is now in East Yorkshire).

Those southerners haven't half messed us about; two moves and I've lived in six "counties".


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 16:10
Subject: RE: Exceptionally good article


 
Arthur

In response to Modern Yorkshireman existing&&&&&&I have absolutely no idea what you mean?

I consider myself a (modern)Yorkshireman born in Leeds brought up in Sandal Magna Nr. Wakefield , once I discovered electricity and clothing ( wode was decidedly uncomfortable) I ended up at Leeds Uni. then Cambridge if I remember correctly both institutions had books.

Having served with the RN ( we managed to understand nuclear propulsion) prior to moving to the USA I lived in London and had very little problems being assimilated into this collective. I ended up in silicon valley where they also have electricity , though little understanding of beer.

George

(Somewhat tongue in cheek)

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

Ask George H

________________________________
From: Arthurian lancastrian@... >
To: " " >
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,
{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... >
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
>From: Ishita Bandyo
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>> each other!
>
>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>

Maire wrote:
>
> Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link it, just tell me what newspaper. Thank you. Maire.

Carol responds:

It's the article by Bert Fields (presumably the same person as Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood"), which was posted on the Daily Beast website (the same one that posted the Newsweek articles):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html

It's not perfect since Mr. Fields seems to think that the Countess of Desmond story is true, but it's favorable toward Richard and is better researched than most of the articles popping up all over the Internet and elsewhere.

BTW, I'm a bit disappointed in "Royal Blood," which so far has told me little that I don't already know. The one exception is his very reasonable explanation of Richard's supposed abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge stemming from Tudor times and repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and others.

Other than that, it reads like a condensation of Kendall. But maybe the later chapters will provide the new insights that I was expecting.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> But  these are suppositions Claire and that is not history . Until we find documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup? [Snip]

Carol responds:

Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > The ability to learn foreign languages tends to run in families, though,
> > the way that musical ability does - of course it's possible that one
> > sibling might be tone-deaf while others are talented musicians, but it's
> > far more likely that the brother of a talented musician has at least some
> > musical ability himself. Same with foreign languages.
>
> Eee - maybe, although my mother is tolerably good at foreign languages and
> my father spoke multiple dialects of Chinese and, apparently, Polish as
> well.
>


It's complicated, of course - I won't claim that any particular talent runs in families in such a simplistic way. But in languages, as well as musical ability, early exposure also plays an important role, even in the absence of talent. You don't need absolute pitch to learn the scales and you don't need to be Glenn Gould to learn to play Chopsticks as a child. Even if Richard was a complete dunce at languages and couldn't pronounce his way out of a paper bag, he'd certainly spent enough time abroad to train his ear a little bit, and I'm assuming he was capable of at least some basic conversation with foreign diplomats.

Wasn't the long, personal prayer in his Book of Hours in Latin, too?

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Actually I might be wrong about them taking the Seal because I can't
> find the reference now, [snip]

Carol responds:

You're not mistaken though they didn't take it; Archbishop Rotherham foolishly and illegally gave it to Elizabeth Woodville. I think that the reference is Mancini but it could be the Croyland Chronicle (or both). Even though he later retrieved it, his foolish action cost him the chancellorship, which went to the highly capable Archbishop Russell instead.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> The one exception is his very reasonable explanation of Richard's supposed
> abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge stemming from Tudor times and
> repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and others.

I don't know what Fields made of it, but even if the bare bones of it were
all true, Higginbotham tried to smuggle an unsupported assumption in under
the cloak of "no doubt". If somebody says "No doubt after riding 70 miles
in five hours, X would have been exhausted", that's a fair use of "no
doubt", but she's using "no doubt he would have had a mob of armed thugs
with him" to mean "I don't know whether he did or not but I hope you won't
notice".

She sees a young thug terrorising an old lady - I see a skinny little youth
confronting a grand dame, and a conversation something like this:

"We suspect you will use your vast fortune to support the king's enemies, so
either we will take control of the money and leave you free, or take control
of you so we can monitor what you do with the money." Which is dubiously
legal but tactically understandable.

"All right, I choose house arrest then."

"You could come and live with me."

"You live at the arse end of nowhere and the journey is too far for me at my
age."

"OK, choose somewhere you fancy then."

I got it! I think someone posted about Bertram Field's article on dailybeast and called it an exceptional article!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I never wrote about exceptionally good article - which one was it? Cecily slipped in a few posts later. Bless Yahoo!
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 18:06
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
>
> It stated with Cicely, went on to countess and now is on bible! Hahaha
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't think it was this one. I think it was something from Ishita which started this off but about 200 messages ago. Yahoo going mad! H
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:43
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > > Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
> > > "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
> > > it, just tell me what newspaper.
> >
> > The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to
> > be this post by Hilary Jones:
> >
> > "On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind
> > to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her
> > servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and
> > she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death,
> > despite her retreat. "
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Vickie wrote:

> Carol,
> I saw a spot on the news this morning about snow in Tucson, and thought of you
> Vickie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Vickie. Not quite on a par with finding Richard, but snow in Tucson, especially as much as we got yesterday, is very unusual. I grabbed my coat and camera and ran out into the snow to take photos (which, since I can't set the date on my camera, say January 1, 1980!) Unfortunately, it has all melted away now, but it was fun (and beautiful) while it lasted.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> The origin of this thread, and therefore the article referred to, seems to be this post by Hilary Jones:
>
> "On the National Archives website about Cecily Neville (which is quite kind to Richard, it says she endorsed his kingship) they say that several of her servants were involved in the Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck rebellions and she was probably therefore still meddling up until the time of her death, despite her retreat. "
>
Carol responds:

Actually, it was my post on the Bert Fields' Daily Beast article, to which I've already provided the link. Unfortunately, Yahoo makes it very hard, sometimes nearly impossible, to trace a thread to its source--unless, of course, you're the person who started the thread!

Carol

Thanks so much for the article, Carol. It was very interesting. The Daily Beast is read by many young people in America. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
> >
> > Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this "Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link it, just tell me what newspaper. Thank you. Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's the article by Bert Fields (presumably the same person as Bertram Fields, author of "Royal Blood"), which was posted on the Daily Beast website (the same one that posted the Newsweek articles):
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
>
> It's not perfect since Mr. Fields seems to think that the Countess of Desmond story is true, but it's favorable toward Richard and is better researched than most of the articles popping up all over the Internet and elsewhere.
>
> BTW, I'm a bit disappointed in "Royal Blood," which so far has told me little that I don't already know. The one exception is his very reasonable explanation of Richard's supposed abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge stemming from Tudor times and repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and others.
>
> Other than that, it reads like a condensation of Kendall. But maybe the later chapters will provide the new insights that I was expecting.
>
> Carol
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think it's whether Richard just wanted everyone to have accessto/understand the Bible in English or whether he was going down the full Lollard route which was direct line to God without the intercession of the Church ie the core of Protestantism (but I'm no theologian). My guess was, it was the former. Just as with the Law he wanted the common man to be able to understand it. I've never heard him talked on as a reformist. But that's just me of course. H 

Carol responds:

Audrey Williamson has a lovely quote from a petition by the churchmen to Richard immediately after his January 1484 Parliament (signed by Russell, Bourchier, and even Rotherham, among many others) that related to their view of him as a reformer and their hopes that (IIRC), he would help to root out corruption in the Church. Unfortunately, I don't have time to hunt up the quote and type it out, but I can find the page number if anyone wants it.

BTW, I just found the article on Richard's Parliament which I've only had time to skim:

http://www.richard3nz.org/Sources/Richard%27s%20Parliament.pdf

Carol

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/docu
ments/digitalasset/dg_202133.pdf







From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article





Thanks so much for the article, Carol. It was very interesting. The Daily
Beast is read by many young people in America. Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
> >
> > Yes, he certainly was the independent type! Can you direct me to this
"Exceptionally good article"? I can't find it here. You don't have to link
it, just tell me what newspaper. Thank you. Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's the article by Bert Fields (presumably the same person as Bertram
Fields, author of "Royal Blood"), which was posted on the Daily Beast
website (the same one that posted the Newsweek articles):
>
>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii
-s-secrets.html
>
> It's not perfect since Mr. Fields seems to think that the Countess of
Desmond story is true, but it's favorable toward Richard and is better
researched than most of the articles popping up all over the Internet and
elsewhere.
>
> BTW, I'm a bit disappointed in "Royal Blood," which so far has told me
little that I don't already know. The one exception is his very reasonable
explanation of Richard's supposed abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge
stemming from Tudor times and repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and
others.
>
> Other than that, it reads like a condensation of Kendall. But maybe the
later chapters will provide the new insights that I was expecting.
>
> Carol
>

Kendall was the first to make me care so much about Richard that I was
in tears at the end, willing him to win the battle even knowing he didn't.
Disagree totally about his Richard seeming wooden and unconvincing, The
opposite in fact.
Paul

On 21/02/2013 19:58, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>> He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have
>> (anachronistically) made him out to be
> I always found Kendall's take on Richard as a person wooden and unconvincing
> for this reason. His
> Richard doesn't sound at all like the sparky, bouncy, slightly excitable
> little bloke von Poppelau liked so much. Kendall is, perversely, much more
> interesting - and much more fun - in the section on Henry at the back of the
> book.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Kendall, Costain, Tey, Edwards all made me mad about the Plantaganents in general and Richard in particular. I'll never abandon our guy! Maire.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Kendall was the first to make me care so much about Richard that I was
> in tears at the end, willing him to win the battle even knowing he didn't.
> Disagree totally about his Richard seeming wooden and unconvincing, The
> opposite in fact.
> Paul
>
> On 21/02/2013 19:58, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> >> He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have
> >> (anachronistically) made him out to be
> > I always found Kendall's take on Richard as a person wooden and unconvincing
> > for this reason. His
> > Richard doesn't sound at all like the sparky, bouncy, slightly excitable
> > little bloke von Poppelau liked so much. Kendall is, perversely, much more
> > interesting - and much more fun - in the section on Henry at the back of the
> > book.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Kendall, Costain, Tey, Edwards all made me mad about the Plantaganents in
> general and Richard in particular. I'll never abandon our guy! Maire.

I was inspired by Tey in the first instance - The Daughter of Time was
semi-compulsory reading in Second Year at my secondary school - although
even at that age I thought that Richard's expression in the NPG portrait was
that of a man in urgent need of spectacles.

Richard needing glasses? Hmmm...another interesting theory! Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > Kendall, Costain, Tey, Edwards all made me mad about the Plantaganents in
> > general and Richard in particular. I'll never abandon our guy! Maire.
>
> I was inspired by Tey in the first instance - The Daughter of Time was
> semi-compulsory reading in Second Year at my secondary school - although
> even at that age I thought that Richard's expression in the NPG portrait was
> that of a man in urgent need of spectacles.
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Richard needing glasses? Hmmm...another interesting theory! Maire.

It's not something we're ever likely to know for sure but that's what that
rather peering expression looks like. Also his skull looks like it has very
deep eye-sockets, and the deeper the eyeball from front to back, the more
likely the person is to be myopic - it's to do with focal length.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I took a look at the Middleham jewel and could not find the R-A inscription. But the article Pansy linked to, is really informative.

Carol responds:

Here's another article (okay, a blog) by the author of an apparently pro-Richard novel focusing on Anne Neville called "Virgin Widow," discussing both the Middleham Jewel and the boar badge: http://flyhigh-by-learnonline.blogspot.com/2012/01/anne-obrien-ricardian-jewels-touching.html The author states that the Hebrew and Latin inscriptions around the edge of the jewel relate to childbirth and a spell to ward off epilepsy, points that I have no way of verifying. (She doesn't cite a source.) She does make one rather large mistaking, stating that the boar badge is over six hundred years old. I would think that was a typo except that the number is spelled out.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> She does make one rather large mistaking, stating that the boar badge is
> over six hundred years old. I would think that was a typo except that the
> number is spelled out.

I was jsut reading yesterday that it was meant to be derived from somebody
or other's blue boar, so maybe it's that that's 600+ years old.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Or possibly - let us be honest - really bad at learning foreign languages.
>
Carol responds:

Considering that he listened to lengthy sermons in Latin and owned books in French, I don't think that was the case. I think that he was just more comfortable (like many other people) reading the Bible in his own language. And he also thought that the people should hear the coronation oath in English rather than Latin and read laws in English rather than French--not because he didn't understand Latin or French--he had a very thorough understanding of French or he could not have had the extensive background that he had in English law--and he must have understood sufficient Latin not to fall asleep during those sermons--but, I suspect, because English was the language of his nation and his people. His unusual sympathy with and understanding of the common people is one reason why he holds such a strong emotional appeal for so many people.

I believe that Richard was also the first king of England to have the laws printed rather than recorded in manuscript (handwritten), but I could be mistaken.

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I never wrote about exceptionally good article - which one was it? Cecily slipped in a few posts later. Bless Yahoo!

Carol responds:

Good old Yahoo. I think this is the third time I've said that it was the Bert Fields article on R III that I posted a link to, not the NA article on Cecily. Time we changed the subject line, I think!

BTW. don't be discouraged by the response to your letter about the authorship of the Cecily article. At least now we have some author's names to check out. And one of them appears to be the co-author of Philippa Langley's new book (unless I'm misremembering, which is entirely possible.)

Carol

Hilary wrote:
>
> I don't think Richard would have known what a Protestant was. The essence of Protestantism is that there is no intermediary between the individual and God. That was VERY threatening to the Church. There's nothing insofar as I can see from Richard's books etc that indicates that he was about to abandon the Virgin and the Saints and be in direct communication with God.
>
> Much more that he wanted people to understand what they believed and what the laws said. And he certainly wouldn't have wanted masses said for the dead if he'd believed there was no purgatory.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. That's why I said that he had no other "proto-Protestant" leanings that I was aware of and emphasized his Catholic beliefs and practices. In any case, the concept of Protestantism is anachronistic. Martin Luther was not yet two when Richard died. (Luther, of course, was trying to reform Catholicism from within, not start a Protestant movement. I think that Richard would have sympathized with the first goal but not the second. His niece, Margaret Pole, BTW, remained a Roman Catholic, just as her father and uncles had been.)

What Richard did want was to see the priests provide moral guidance to the people. His first act as king, even before his coronation, had been a lecture to the judges to administer justice fairly. It seems clear that he felt much the same way about priests and their duties.Otherwise, it would have been exceedingly odd (and futile) for a convocation of clergymen to approach him immediately after his Parliament with a petition praising "your most noble and blessed disposition in all other things" and beseeching him to hear their grievances, including too much attention to politics and too little to religious matters among certain members of the clergy. (See Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," pp. 112-13.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

Carol earlier:
> > The one exception is his very reasonable explanation of Richard's supposed abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge stemming from Tudor times and repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and others.

Claire responded:
> I don't know what Fields made of it, but even if the bare bones of it were all true, Higginbotham tried to smuggle an unsupported assumption in under the cloak of "no doubt". [snip]
>
> She sees a young thug terrorising an old lady - I see a skinny little youth confronting a grand dame, and a conversation something like this: [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't remember the whole analysis, which was about a page and a half long, but no one accused Richard of avarice in that case until after the Countess's death, when the Earl of Oxford (Henry's general at Bosworth) wanted to get back the lands that had been taken away from his as an attainted traitor. Richard's agreement with the countess, which she had signed, allowed her to live in one of the manors with a pension of 500 marks a year. If it weren't for that agreement, she would simply have been the widow and mother of traitors previously executed by Edward and now the mother of a second attainted traitor. Richard could hardly restore lands that Edward had taken away and given to him, but he could and did make sure that the countess lived comfortably in her own home. Later, he made similar arrangements for his own mother-in-law. If, as the earl (who was imprisoned by Edward and not present) alleged ten years after Richard's death and more than twenty years after the incident referred to, the countess really shed tears, I suspect that they were tears of gratitude.

Carol

pansydobersby wrote:

"Correct me if I'm wrong (the 14th century is far from being my area of
expertise), but didn't the actual persecution of Lollards start after the
Peasants' Revolt?
The very act of translating the Bible was naturally controversial in itself,
but I think the bigger problem was the Lollards' other controversial views
(challenging the authority of the Church in many ways) + the movement's
association with seditious movements for social justice => a dangerous
mixture. The vernacular Bible became a convenient symbol for all the other
controversies surrounding it."

Doug here:

I'm not certain of the exact date, but I do know the Peasants' Revolt
occurred shortly after the death of Edward III; Richard II was still a child
of 10 or 12.
Wycliffe starting his translations during the reign of Richard II, sometime
during the 1370's, I believe. The Lollards used Wycliffe's translations to
support their political activism via preaching/propagandizing. I do know
Wycliffe himself didn't believe in transubstantiation and even if he didn't
particularly emphasize it, it's a miracle he wasn't burned at the stake. He
was also in favor of married clergy, I believe, as well as stripping the
Church of its' wealth to provide for the poor and support schools. His views
on the Church's wealth were probably the most resented of his various
charges. Truth hurts, I guess.
I've read that the widow of the Black Prince, who was Richard II's mother,
was his patroness/protectress and that's what kept him out of trouble for so
long. After her death, Wycliffe did have to retire to his parish
(Lutterworth?), but otherwise he was let alone an died a natural death.
Some time after his death, after Henry IV usurped the throne in 1399, his
body was disinterred and burnt. That was at the beginning of the campaign
against Lollardry.
Doug

pansydobersby wrote:

"My theory about the rob' ho'? The Countess was once again determined to
play the role of Robin Hood in their amateur production at the May Games,
despite her son-in-laws vehement opposition. I suspect there were bitter
arguments because Richard was tired of playing a non-speaking role - a
page-boy, a prison guard, and as a final humiliation, a tree - for three
years in a row. He was particularly bitter that the Countess was in charge
of the casting, the director AND got to play the leading role, though he
footed the bill for the sets and costumes. Anne thought he was being
childish and silly with his complaints - but then she *would*, wouldn't she,
as she always got to play Maid Marian."

He should have been grateful he wasn't cast as the "Dame"!
Doug
(who presumes you WERE describing a "panto")

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I don't remember the whole analysis, which was about a page and a half
> long, but no one accused Richard of avarice in that case until after the
> Countess's death, when the Earl of Oxford (Henry's general at Bosworth)
> wanted to get back the lands that had been taken away from his as an
> attainted traitor. Richard's agreement with the countess, which she had
> signed, allowed her to live in one of the manors with a pension of 500
> marks a year.

OK, so

"You could come and live at my place."
"No, it's much too far away."
"All right, where would you prefer?"

may well be true but she'd already lost control of her fortune legally, and
if Richard did suggest she come and live at his place it was probably a
sincerely generous offer.

> If, as the earl (who was imprisoned by Edward and not present) alleged ten
> years after Richard's death and more than twenty years after the incident
> referred to, the countess really shed tears, I suspect that they were
> tears of gratitude.

Or just despair at her general misfortune and needing to be a charity case
for this little whippersnapper. How much is 500 marks in modern money? Is
it a reasonable sum for a woman of that rank?

The Virgin Widow (Anne O'Brien) is a romance novel. The author makes no pretence that it is top draw historical. It's full of stereotypes, a horrible Prince Edward, wicked Warwick, thigh-slapping George. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 1:58
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 



--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I took a look at the Middleham jewel and could not find the R-A inscription. But the article Pansy linked to, is really informative.

Carol responds:

Here's another article (okay, a blog) by the author of an apparently pro-Richard novel focusing on Anne Neville called "Virgin Widow," discussing both the Middleham Jewel and the boar badge: http://flyhigh-by-learnonline.blogspot.com/2012/01/anne-obrien-ricardian-jewels-touching.html The author states that the Hebrew and Latin inscriptions around the edge of the jewel relate to childbirth and a spell to ward off epilepsy, points that I have no way of verifying. (She doesn't cite a source.) She does make one rather large mistaking, stating that the boar badge is over six hundred years old. I would think that was a typo except that the number is spelled out.

Carol

As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this - look at brother George.  Only being provocative before you scalp me, but that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 21:01
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> But  these are suppositions Claire and that is not history . Until we find documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup? [Snip]

Carol responds:

Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.

Carol

Think Yahoo's gone mad again, I was answering Ishita. We agree to agree.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 3:51
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Hilary wrote:
>
> I don't think Richard would have known what a Protestant was. The essence of Protestantism is that there is no intermediary between the individual and God. That was VERY threatening to the Church. There's nothing insofar as I can see from Richard's books etc that indicates that he was about to abandon the Virgin and the Saints and be in direct communication with God.
>
> Much more that he wanted people to understand what they believed and what the laws said. And he certainly wouldn't have wanted masses said for the dead if he'd believed there was no purgatory.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. That's why I said that he had no other "proto-Protestant" leanings that I was aware of and emphasized his Catholic beliefs and practices. In any case, the concept of Protestantism is anachronistic. Martin Luther was not yet two when Richard died. (Luther, of course, was trying to reform Catholicism from within, not start a Protestant movement. I think that Richard would have sympathized with the first goal but not the second. His niece, Margaret Pole, BTW, remained a Roman Catholic, just as her father and uncles had been.)

What Richard did want was to see the priests provide moral guidance to the people. His first act as king, even before his coronation, had been a lecture to the judges to administer justice fairly. It seems clear that he felt much the same way about priests and their duties.Otherwise, it would have been exceedingly odd (and futile) for a convocation of clergymen to approach him immediately after his Parliament with a petition praising "your most noble and blessed disposition in all other things" and beseeching him to hear their grievances, including too much attention to politics and too little to religious matters among certain members of the clergy. (See Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," pp. 112-13.

Carol

I wasn't discouraged - I've made contact with Sean! And he's gone up in my estimation if he worked with Jones. Pollard next about the Smethon letter?  Just joking.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 3:14
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I never wrote about exceptionally good article - which one was it? Cecily slipped in a few posts later. Bless Yahoo!

Carol responds:

Good old Yahoo. I think this is the third time I've said that it was the Bert Fields article on R III that I posted a link to, not the NA article on Cecily. Time we changed the subject line, I think!

BTW. don't be discouraged by the response to your letter about the authorship of the Cecily article. At least now we have some author's names to check out. And one of them appears to be the co-author of Philippa Langley's new book (unless I'm misremembering, which is entirely possible.)

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about
> messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say
> that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this -
> look at brother George. Only being provocative before you scalp me, but
> that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.

I maintain that it is significantly more likely than not that a message
reached him overnight - especially as his behaviour changed so abruptly. If
Richard had simply decided to arrest Anthony, why would he have dined with
him politely the might before? Why not arrest him at once? The idea that
he was civilised the night before and then arrested the Woodvilles and
carted them off to ultimate execution in the morning *without* being given
any reason to change his behaviour in the interim suggests either a
treacherous or a very erratic and changeable nature, neither of which fits
his usual behaviour.

His sudden change of behaviour strongly implies that between night and
morning he'd been given a strong reason to change his behaviour. One can
think of other possible reasons - he or one of his men might have overheard
something suggesting a Woodville plot, for example - but given that the
first meeting occurred on the very day that the Woodvilles in London emptied
the treasury, and that a message coming from London could have reached him
and would be expected to have done so in exactly the right time-frame to
account for what we see happening, imo it should be assumed that a message
probably did reach him unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise (such
as any text indicating that he didn't find out about the raid on the
treasury until later), or a clear alternative reason for his overnight
change of heart is forthcoming.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> You'll see from other posts that Lessy and Boyvile are mentioned by Weightman as probable spies/plotters between Cecily and Margaret of York after Richard's death. It gets more and more interesting. Did Boyvile  leave a will?


Marie replies:
If Richard Boyvile left a will, it wasn't proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. But the Boyviles are mentioned in the wills of Cecily Neville and her executor Richard Lessy:-

Cecily's will (April-May 1495):
"Also I geve to Richard Boyvile and Grasild his wif my chariett and the horses with the harnes that belongith therunto, a gowne with a dymy-trayn of purpull saten furred with ermyns, a shortt gowne of purple saten furred with jennetes, a kirtill of white damaske with andelettes silver and gilte, a spone of gold, a dymysynt of gold with a columbyne garnesshed with a diamont, a saphour, an amatist and viij perles, a pomeamber of gold enameled, a litell boxe with a cover of gold and a diamant in the toppe."
Glossary:
Andelette = andlet, variant of anlet, a small ring. Usually the metal ring used to secure hole through which the point was threaded.
Columbine = an ornament in the form of the flower (aquilegia vulgaris, `the inverted flower of which has some resemblance to five pigeons clustered together')
Demisent = demiceint, `a girdle having ornamental work only in the front'
Jennet = genet.

Richard Lessy (February 1498)
"I have disposed the saide x li to the mariage of Grisilde Boyvyll, whereof I have paid to Sir Henry Golde, her uncle, in parte of payment of the said x li, xl s upon this condicion: that if she be married to Myers, the hole summe; and if she be not maried the said summe of xl s to be restored to me or to my executours; and thanne, if it happen so, I will the said summe be bestowed to the fyndyng of a poor scoler as long as the summe of x li lasteth."
I get the impression from this that the Grisilde Boyvile in question was the daughter of Richard Boyvile and his wife Grasild, and that her parents were probably now dead.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > Most testators include a lot of money and detail re prayers, usually
> > starting immediately, for their own souls and those of their family, but
> > not Cecily despite being so religious.
>
> How religious was she, exactly? I came across a reference recently - I
> can't remember where - to the effect that her husband had to emply a special
> officer to keep an eye on her spending othewrwise she would have bankrupted
> him, which suggests that she was what we would now call a shopaholic, and
> that her decision to go into a convent might have had an element of therapy,
> a desire to curb her own behaviour, like checking into a clinic nowadays.
> Although a desire to curb her own extravagance might itself stem from a
> devout desire to suppress something she might see as vanity and greed.
>


She was religious in her own way, as an elderly woman at any rate. She was a patroness of Syon, Stoke by Clare and other religious communities, and at some date that isn't quite clear she started to live under the rule of the Benedictine Order at home in her castle of Berkhamsted. Her personality hadn't changed, though; she just became a collector of religious bling. She left an enormous number of gorgeous copes and other clerical vestments, a tapestry of the Pope, etc, etc.
She was clearly a conventional Catholic so would have believed that the prayers of the living would help her through Purgatory, so some explanation is required for her failure to address this matter properly in her will. My own suspicion is that she had made these provisions (including the names of those to be prayed for such as her son Richard) by another route, as her will would have to be proved - and approved - at Archbishop Morton's court at Lambeth Palace.
Marie

If you read that the Countess of Warwick dabbled in the Old Religion, could it have been in a novel called 'The Court of the Midnight King'?
The only reference we have to her religious tendencies of which I am aware is Rous' claim that she was "ever a full devout lady in God's service".
Marie



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Like Carol, I have never heard of this with regard to Anne Beauchamp/Warwick.  I have read somewhere that she dabbled in the 'old religion' though and was allowed to continue. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > each other!
>
> Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> Her personality hadn't changed, though; she just became a collector of
> religious bling.

I love it.

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> If you read that the Countess of Warwick dabbled in the Old Religion,
> could it have been in a novel called 'The Court of the Midnight King'?
The only reference we have to her religious tendencies of which I am aware
is Rous' claim that she was "ever a full devout lady in God's service".

Could there have been some confusion here with Jaquetta Woodville?

Ta,
 
Having looked at Lessy's will , he also left stuff to his nephews John and William. Do we know what happened to them? An unusual name from East Anglia which probably became Lacy? It's a strange will. It seems to break off and then start again mentioning Cecily.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:00
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> You'll see from other posts that Lessy and Boyvile are mentioned by Weightman as probable spies/plotters between Cecily and Margaret of York after Richard's death. It gets more and more interesting. Did Boyvile  leave a will?

Marie replies:
If Richard Boyvile left a will, it wasn't proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. But the Boyviles are mentioned in the wills of Cecily Neville and her executor Richard Lessy:-

Cecily's will (April-May 1495):
"Also I geve to Richard Boyvile and Grasild his wif my chariett and the horses with the harnes that belongith therunto, a gowne with a dymy-trayn of purpull saten furred with ermyns, a shortt gowne of purple saten furred with jennetes, a kirtill of white damaske with andelettes silver and gilte, a spone of gold, a dymysynt of gold with a columbyne garnesshed with a diamont, a saphour, an amatist and viij perles, a pomeamber of gold enameled, a litell boxe with a cover of gold and a diamant in the toppe."
Glossary:
Andelette = andlet, variant of anlet, a small ring. Usually the metal ring used to secure hole through which the point was threaded.
Columbine = an ornament in the form of the flower (aquilegia vulgaris, `the inverted flower of which has some resemblance to five pigeons clustered together')
Demisent = demiceint, `a girdle having ornamental work only in the front'
Jennet = genet.

Richard Lessy (February 1498)
"I have disposed the saide x li to the mariage of Grisilde Boyvyll, whereof I have paid to Sir Henry Golde, her uncle, in parte of payment of the said x li, xl s upon this condicion: that if she be married to Myers, the hole summe; and if she be not maried the said summe of xl s to be restored to me or to my executours; and thanne, if it happen so, I will the said summe be bestowed to the fyndyng of a poor scoler as long as the summe of x li lasteth."
I get the impression from this that the Grisilde Boyvile in question was the daughter of Richard Boyvile and his wife Grasild, and that her parents were probably now dead.

I have read that, yes but you need to look at Pollard's assumptions that she was a disciple of St Penket (an obscure Anglo-Saxon saint). I actually thought the Court of the Midnight King was based on fantasy, which is what Freda Warrington specialises in. I was surprised to find that it either by chance, or by research, had some base in potential fact. So I don't rate Warrington on supposition but I do Pollard who isn't usually one to go off on flights on fancy.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:39
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


If you read that the Countess of Warwick dabbled in the Old Religion, could it have been in a novel called 'The Court of the Midnight King'?
The only reference we have to her religious tendencies of which I am aware is Rous' claim that she was "ever a full devout lady in God's service".
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Like Carol, I have never heard of this with regard to Anne Beauchamp/Warwick.  I have read somewhere that she dabbled in the 'old religion' though and was allowed to continue. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > each other!
>
> Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> chronically unable to delegate....
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aye, and there are parts of both counties that have bin moved in or out as the planners whims dictated.

Mitton for one I think?

Still look at Rutland, now you see it, now you don't, now you do!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>I'm from Yorkshire and in no way consider myself modern. Perish the thought.
>
>I was born in the West Riding (which is now in South Yorkshire), moved to the East Riding (which is now in North Yorkshire), and then moved to Humberside (which is now in East Yorkshire).
>
>Those southerners haven't half messed us about; two moves and I've lived in six "counties".
>
>________________________________
>From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 16:10
>Subject: RE: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>Arthur
>
>In response to Modern Yorkshireman existing&&&&&&I have absolutely no idea what you mean?
>
>I consider myself a (modern)Yorkshireman born in Leeds brought up in Sandal Magna Nr. Wakefield , once I discovered electricity and clothing ( wode was decidedly uncomfortable) I ended up at Leeds Uni. then Cambridge if I remember correctly both institutions had books.
>
>Having served with the RN ( we managed to understand nuclear propulsion) prior to moving to the USA I lived in London and had very little problems being assimilated into this collective. I ended up in silicon valley where they also have electricity , though little understanding of beer.
>
>George
>
>(Somewhat tongue in cheek)
>
>From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:36 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>Ask George H
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@... >
>To: " " >
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,
>{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... >
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Ishita Bandyo
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>>> each other!
>>
>>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>>chronically unable to delegate....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was there two weeks' ago. I was down by Rutland Water. 



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:26
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Aye, and there are parts of both counties that have bin moved in or out as the planners whims dictated.

Mitton for one I think?

Still look at Rutland, now you see it, now you don't, now you do!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.

>________________________________
> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>I'm from Yorkshire and in no way consider myself modern. Perish the thought.
>
>I was born in the West Riding (which is now in South Yorkshire), moved to the East Riding (which is now in North Yorkshire), and then moved to Humberside (which is now in East Yorkshire).
>
>Those southerners haven't half messed us about; two moves and I've lived in six "counties".
>
>________________________________
>From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 16:10
>Subject: RE: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>Arthur
>
>In response to Modern Yorkshireman existing&&&&&&I have absolutely no idea what you mean?
>
>I consider myself a (modern)Yorkshireman born in Leeds brought up in Sandal Magna Nr. Wakefield , once I discovered electricity and clothing ( wode was decidedly uncomfortable) I ended up at Leeds Uni. then Cambridge if I remember correctly both institutions had books.
>
>Having served with the RN ( we managed to understand nuclear propulsion) prior to moving to the USA I lived in London and had very little problems being assimilated into this collective. I ended up in silicon valley where they also have electricity , though little understanding of beer.
>
>George
>
>(Somewhat tongue in cheek)
>
>From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:36 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>Ask George H
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@... >
>To: " " >
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,
>{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... >
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Ishita Bandyo
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>>> each other!
>>
>>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>>chronically unable to delegate....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > . Until we find documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, *do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup?* [Snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.
>
Hilary responded:
> As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this - look at brother George.  Only being provocative before you scalp me, but that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.

Carol again:

You asked if we had proof that they were planning a coup. I provided evidence that, yes, they were. (There's plenty more that I didn't mention.) I was not responding to the messages question, to which I can add nothing except that, yes, somehow Richard did learn what the Woodvilles were up to. I was responding to your statement about documentary evidence other than the missing messages and specifically to your question, "Do we have proof that the Woodvilles were planning a coup." That's why I snipped the quote to emphasize that part of your post and not the whole thing.

Carol

I'm sorry but I didn't ask for documentary evidence of a coup - I asked for documentary evidence of the messages to and from Richard and the timing of the messages, including one from Richard to London indicating his anticipated time of arrival which was mooted by Carol.  And to carry this further (though it was not the subject of my original comment) since we have no extant document from Edward appointing Richard Protector, you could say the Woodvilles were acting in self-defence and to proect the new king.  Being provocative. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > . Until we find documentary evidence to prove allà this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, *do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup?* [Snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.
>
Hilary responded:
> As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this - look at brother George.  Only being provocative before you scalp me, but that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.

Carol again:

You asked if we had proof that they were planning a coup. I provided evidence that, yes, they were. (There's plenty more that I didn't mention.) I was not responding to the messages question, to which I can add nothing except that, yes, somehow Richard did learn what the Woodvilles were up to. I was responding to your statement about documentary evidence other than the missing messages and specifically to your question, "Do we have proof that the Woodvilles were planning a coup." That's why I snipped the quote to emphasize that part of your post and not the whole thing.

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I'm sorry but I didn't ask for documentary evidence of a coup - I asked
> for documentary evidence of the messages to and from Richard and the
> timing of the messages, including one from Richard to London indicating
> his anticipated time of arrival which was mooted by Carol.

It was me - and I think it's a thing which can be assumed. He was moving
with 600 gentlemen plus presumably their servants and baggage train, so
maybe 1500+ people and as many horses - they couldn't possibly just turn up
and expect to be accommodated without prior warning (and Richard had been
billetting armies since he was twelve). Doubly so since population sized
were smaller then, so 1500+ would be like a whole town on the move and would
double or treble the population of almost everywhere it ended up.

There are some things which don't really require proof because they are so
much what you would expect that proof is required to argue that it *isn't*
so. Can you produce documentary proof that Richard marched a small army
from point to point across England turning up unexpectedly at each stop, and
was still fed and housed?

> And to carry this further (though it was not the subject of my original
> comment) since we have no extant document from Edward appointing Richard
> Protector, you could say the Woodvilles were acting in self-defence and to
> proect the new king.

If they had merely taken the Seal, yes you could. Or even if they knew
Richard was Protector they might fear him (rightly or wrongly) and feel that
they had to protect the young king from him. If they moved the treasure
into Sanctuary or posted their own guard over it that might fit. But taking
the money which the boy king himself was going to need and having it away
right out of the country sounds like Dorset, at least, was cutting his
losses and abandoning his half brothers to their fate. Maybe he was jealous
of them!

Marie responds:

I'm afraid the dog boy story doesn't hold water. It seems to go back to Kendall's translation of Richard's "l'un des chevaucheurs de mon écurie" as "one of the grooms of my stable", but 'chevaucheur' means a rider, not a groom; Louis also used 'chevauchers' of his stable to deliver letters.
These are the actual letters, in modernised spelling:-

1) From Louis XI to Richard, acknowledging his accession:-
"Monsieur Mon Cousin: j'ai vu les lettres que m'avez [sic] par votre heraut Blanc Sanglier, et vous mercie des nouvelles que m'avez fait savoir, et si je vous puis faire quelque service je le ferai de très bon coeur, car je veux bien avoir votre amitié. Et adieu, Monsieur mon cousin.
Ecrit aux Montils les Tours le 20ème jour de juillet,
Louis"
(My Lord cousin: I have seen the letters that you have me [sic] by your herald Blanc Sanglier, and thank you for the news you have let me know of. And if I can do you any service I shall do it with very good heart, as I really wish to have your friendship. And God be with you, my Lord cousin.
Written at Montils les Tours the 20th day of July.
Louis.)

2) Richard to Louis:-
"Monsieur mon cousin, j'ai vu les lettres que m'avez envoyées par Buckingham le Heraut, par lesquelles j'entends que voulez bien avoir mon amitié, dont je suis bien content en bonne forme & manière, car je n'entends pour rompre telles trêves comme ci-devant étaient conclues entre feu de très noble memoire, le Roi mon frère trépassé, & vous, pour le terme dicelles. Toutefois, les marchants de celui mon royaume d'Angleterre, voyants les grandes occasions à eux données par vos sujets en prenant les navires & marchandises & autrement, doutant grandement d'eux aventurer d'aller a Bordeaux & ailleurs en votre obeissance jusqu'a ce qu'ils puissent être assurés de par vous de pouvoir sécurement & sauvement exercer le fait de leurs dits marchandises en tous les lieux de votre dit obeissance accordant au droit des dites trêves, sur quoi afin que mes dits sujets & marchants ne soient déçus sous ombre dicelle, je vous prie que mon serviteur, ce porteur, l'un des chevaucheurs de mon écurie, me veuilles faire savoir par écrit votre plaine intention. Ensemble, si chose desirez que pour vous puisse pour l'accomplir de bon coeur. Et adieu soyez, Monsieur mon cousin. Ecrit en mon chateau de Leicester le 18e jour d'août."
(My Lord Cousin, I have seen the letters you have sent me by Buckingham Herald, whereby I understand that you really wish to have my friendship, whereof I am well pleased in good form and manner as I do not intend to break such truces as were formerly concluded between the late king of most noble memory, my deceased brother, and you for the term thereof. Nevertheless, the merchants of this my realm of England, seeing the great occasions given to them by your subjects in seizing ships and merchandise and otherwise, fearing greatly to go to Bordeaux and other places under your obedience until they may be assured by you that they may safely and surely exercise the doing of their said merchandises in all the places under your said obedience in accordance with their right under the said truces
, whereupon in order that my said subjects and merchants be not deceived under the cover thereof [ie of the truce] I pray you that my [sic] servant this bearer, one of the riders of my stable, you will let me know in writing your plain intent and also if there is anything you desire that I may do for you in order to accomplish it with good heart. And God be with you, my Lord Cousin.
Written in my castle of Leicester the 18th day of August.)

----

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
> > Claire, that's too funny! That's exactly how I see him! And with a dry and
> > mischievous sense of humor( letter about Elizabeth Shore's marriage)!
>
> You know about his correspondence with the king of France? The French king
> wrote to Richard about some political matter - I forget what - but the
> letter ends "...which I send by the hand of this groom. Adieu, monsieur mon
> cousin." Richard replied perfectly soberly, except that *his* letter ended
> "...which I send by the hand of this dog-boy. And adieu to *you*, monsieur
> mon cousin."
>
> The usual interpretation of this is that they were progressively insulting
> each other by using such lowly emissaries. There is another possibility -
> I'm not sure what the date was, but if it was early enough in Richard's
> reign that the letter came from Louis XI (who died eight weeks after Richard
> was crowned), well, Louis was famously obsessed with dogs and dressed like a
> dog-boy himself, so the correspondence *could* be a sign that Richard was as
> horse-mad as Louis was dog-mad, and they're saying to each other "I send
> this by my groom/dog-boy because I know you'll be more interested in finding
> out about my horses/dogs than about the politics."
>
> But however you cut it, the French king was having a little dig at Richard,
> and Richard dug back harder.
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> I'm afraid the dog boy story doesn't hold water. It seems to go back to
> Kendall's translation of Richard's "l'un des chevaucheurs de mon écurie"
> as "one of the grooms of my stable", but 'chevaucheur' means a rider, not
> a groom; Louis also used 'chevauchers' of his stable to deliver letters.

Oh, right, so it's more like "I'm sending this by Pony Express". A pity, in
a way, but they're rather nice letters - they sounbd as though they're
genuinely trying to get along withy each other. It's a shame Louis died so
soon.

Oh, yes, Pollard's interpretation of the Clairvaux letter. I personally think the saint's name almost certainly wasn't 'Pen', but unfortunately the entire letter seems to have gone missing. It is worth bearing in mind that the book this article appeared in was a tribute to the retiring Colin Richmond who had written something about St Penket in some obscure journal which I've not been able to get hold of. Richmond apparently had a reputation for including a bit of leg pulling in his work, and I see the Pollard article in 'Much Heaving and Shoving' as being in that tradition. I would suggest that, assuming the entire letter was not a leg pull (it did disappear), Pollard's interpretation, that the Countess may have participated in strange rites up on the moors certainly was. What is the evidence? That the tablet included "St Pen" - which we have to take on trust since none of us have seen the letter, it may have said Jhon or Anne! That there is a rubbing house on Middleham Moor - of course there is, Middleham is a famous racing stables and such places have rubbing houses along the training circuits to rub down the horses. The rubbing house was built in the 19th century, and Pollard's suggestion that it may have been constructed on the foundations of an earlier building that may have been called a robing house because it may have been used for dressing up for rituals is total fantasy. Yes, there is a hill called Pen Hill above Middleham; not surprising because 'pen' is a Celtic word for a hill! Again I suspect Pollard knew this and was just having fun.

I'll post again later on Pollard's suggestion that the "great tablet" in question was the Middleham jewel.

Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have read that, yes but you need to look at Pollard's assumptions that she was a disciple of St Penket (an obscure Anglo-Saxon saint). I actually thought the Court of the Midnight King was based on fantasy, which is what Freda Warrington specialises in. I was surprised to find that it either by chance, or by research, had some base in potential fact. So I don't rate Warrington on supposition but I do Pollard who isn't usually one to go off on flights on fancy.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:39
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
>
> If you read that the Countess of Warwick dabbled in the Old Religion, could it have been in a novel called 'The Court of the Midnight King'?
> The only reference we have to her religious tendencies of which I am aware is Rous' claim that she was "ever a full devout lady in God's service".
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Like Carol, I have never heard of this with regard to Anne Beauchamp/Warwick.  I have read somewhere that she dabbled in the 'old religion' though and was allowed to continue. H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >  
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > > each other!
> >
> > Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> > Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> > thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> > fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> > chronically unable to delegate....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

What Pollard the dour northern joker? There are some who talk of the Middleham Jewel being about epilepsy - could that be the whirling St Penket? There is a book on her somewhere on the web. As for rubbing houses for racehorses - well didn't racehorses come in with Charles II?  How did I get into this? I think I just looked up the Middleham Jewel for Ishita. I am entirely open to all suggestions, but the idea of a whirling Countess is somewhat appealing. H 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 

Oh, yes, Pollard's interpretation of the Clairvaux letter. I personally think the saint's name almost certainly wasn't 'Pen', but unfortunately the entire letter seems to have gone missing. It is worth bearing in mind that the book this article appeared in was a tribute to the retiring Colin Richmond who had written something about St Penket in some obscure journal which I've not been able to get hold of. Richmond apparently had a reputation for including a bit of leg pulling in his work, and I see the Pollard article in 'Much Heaving and Shoving' as being in that tradition. I would suggest that, assuming the entire letter was not a leg pull (it did disappear), Pollard's interpretation, that the Countess may have participated in strange rites up on the moors certainly was. What is the evidence? That the tablet included "St Pen" - which we have to take on trust since none of us have seen the letter, it may have said Jhon or Anne! That there is a rubbing
house on Middleham Moor - of course there is, Middleham is a famous racing stables and such places have rubbing houses along the training circuits to rub down the horses. The rubbing house was built in the 19th century, and Pollard's suggestion that it may have been constructed on the foundations of an earlier building that may have been called a robing house because it may have been used for dressing up for rituals is total fantasy. Yes, there is a hill called Pen Hill above Middleham; not surprising because 'pen' is a Celtic word for a hill! Again I suspect Pollard knew this and was just having fun.

I'll post again later on Pollard's suggestion that the "great tablet" in question was the Middleham jewel.

Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I have read that, yes but you need to look at Pollard's assumptions that she was a disciple of St Penket (an obscure Anglo-Saxon saint). I actually thought the Court of the Midnight King was based on fantasy, which is what Freda Warrington specialises in. I was surprised to find that it either by chance, or by research, had some base in potential fact. So I don't rate Warrington on supposition but I do Pollard who isn't usually one to go off on flights on fancy.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:39
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
>
> If you read that the Countess of Warwick dabbled in the Old Religion, could it have been in a novel called 'The Court of the Midnight King'?
> The only reference we have to her religious tendencies of which I am aware is Rous' claim that she was "ever a full devout lady in God's service".
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Like Carol, I have never heard of this with regard to Anne Beauchamp/Warwick. àI have read somewhere that she dabbled in the 'old religion' though and was allowed to continue. H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > à
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> > > For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
> > > him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
> > > each other!
> >
> > Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
> > Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
> > thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
> > fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
> > chronically unable to delegate....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

What about the documents young Edward-when-he-was-actually-V signed that referred to Richard as "Protector"? Isn't there more than one of them? If so, that's a good indication that, however it came about, Richard was officially, incontrovertibly acknowledged as Edward's regent during his minority.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I didn't ask for documentary evidence of a coup - I asked for documentary evidence of the messages to and from Richard and the timing of the messages, including one from Richard to London indicating his anticipated time of arrival which was mooted by Carol.  And to carry this further (though it was not the subject of my original comment) since we have no extant document from Edward appointing Richard Protector, you could say the Woodvilles were acting in self-defence and to proect the new king.  Being provocative. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:46
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > . Until we find documentary evidence to prove all this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, *do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup?* [Snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.
> >
> Hilary responded:
> > As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this - look at brother George.  Only being provocative before you scalp me, but that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.
>
> Carol again:
>
> You asked if we had proof that they were planning a coup. I provided evidence that, yes, they were. (There's plenty more that I didn't mention.) I was not responding to the messages question, to which I can add nothing except that, yes, somehow Richard did learn what the Woodvilles were up to. I was responding to your statement about documentary evidence other than the missing messages and specifically to your question, "Do we have proof that the Woodvilles were planning a coup." That's why I snipped the quote to emphasize that part of your post and not the whole thing.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> The rubbing house was built in the 19th century, and Pollard's suggestion
> that it may have been constructed on the foundations of an earlier
> building that may have been called a robing house because it may have been
> used for dressing up for rituals is total fantasy.

Could the "rob" bit be "robed" and the "ho" bit be some word describing
bling? Can anyone think of one? The sentence would make sense logically if
it was "my lord is displeased at her extravagance, but nevertheless my lady
will be robed [mystery word indicating expense or newness or luxury]". Or
could it indeed be "robing house" and refer to visiting the equivalent of a
posh dressmaker?

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I have read that, yes but you need to look at Pollard's assumptions that she was a disciple of St Penket (an obscure Anglo-Saxon saint). I actually thought the Court of the Midnight King was based on fantasy, which is what Freda Warrington specialises in. I was surprised to find that it either by chance, or by research, had some base in potential fact. So I don't rate Warrington on supposition but I do Pollard who isn't usually one to go off on flights on fancy.

Carol responds:

I don't know anything about Warrington, but Pollard certainly does go off on flights of fantasy (as when he tries to justify Rous's identifying Richard as a Scorpio (not realizing that Rous has Richard's birth date wrong and is referring to a rising sign rather than a birth sign). Whether his later books and articles are as bad as "The Princes in the Tower," I don't know, but that book makes far too many assumptions based on traditional sources. Without seeing his article, I can't tell for certain, but he could be going off the deep end with these Saint Penket speculations. (The only thing that I could find out about Saint Penket is that she's female, an Anglo-Saxon virgin and presumably a martyr of some sort.)

If the article I cited the other day by the novelist who wrote "Virgin Widow" (evidently just another romance novel) has any validity, the associations with childbirth and epilepsy that Pollard (apparently) mentions relate to the Hebrew and Latin inscriptions along the edges. If this assertion is true, and I have no way of verifying it, I doubt that they were requistioned by the Countess, who would have had no knowledge of either language. In fact, it seems odd that an goldsmith would have been able to inscribe Hebrew characters or have been able to read either language. If these inscriptions exist, maybe they were already on the reliquary when the countess bought it and she was only looking at the artwork (a Nativity scene on one side and the Crucifixion on the other), the quality of the artwork, and the beauty of the gold and that splendid sapphire.

But I really need to see Pollard's article before I can draw any conclusions about it. If the letter convinced him that Richard didn't keep the countess a prisoner, that's the main thing that matters to me.

Carol

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article


> There are some things which don't really require proof because they are so
much what you would expect that proof is required to argue that it *isn't*
so. Can you produce documentary proof that Richard marched a small army
from point to point across England turning up unexpectedly at each stop, and
was still fed and housed?

Of course, there's also the point that even if nobody in London knew Richard
was coming, you would still expect somebody to send a message to him *in
Yorkshire* to warn him that there was a coup taking place, expecting the
message to reach him in Yorkshire probably in four or five days. Since
there were only a limited number of good roads such a messenger might well
encounter Richard's party en route, even if they hadn't expected to do so.
Or they would just assume that he *might* be coming, and so send a messenger
up every major road. It's not like they could miss him in the dark, with
about 1500 horses in tow, and we can assume, I think, that anybody who had
been put in charge of communications would be reasonably bright.

The only issue is what time a messenger would have left London and how fast
they would get to Northampton. We know it could be done in 18½ hours, but
could it be done faster? If we stick with 18½ hours the messenger would
have to have left London by the late morning to get to Richard by first
light the next day, so then we need to know what time of day the treasure
was taken. However, I'm fairly sure that it *could* be done significantly
faster, unless the road was absolutely awash with mud.

Comments on speed of travel by horseback --

It appears that the distance London - Northampton is in the region of 60
miles.

I've been looking at Coach advertisements from the 18th century & it
appears that it was quite possible to make the distance in about 10 hours.
I know roads were probably better, & the horses were probably cast off's
from the race track who had been bred for speed & stamina for some long
generations by then; on the other hand they were pulling a significant
weight, and were certainly slower than a single horse & rider might be.

In 1750, the Earls of March & Eglington undertook to cover 19 miles in one
hour using a "carriage" - the contemporary engravings show it was a pretty
skeletal contraption, but it did have 4 wheels, & carried a boy on its
structure. Each horse, in addition to being harnessed to the "carriage"
carried a rider. The 19 miles were accomplished in 53 minutes and 27
seconds.

In another famous time trial of the 18th century, Jenison Shafto undertook
to ride 50 miles in 2 hours. He accomplished this in an actual time of 1
hour 49 minutes and 17 seconds, 27 Jun 1759, using 10 different
thoroughbreds, 5 of them twice, each horse covering distances from 3 1/4 to
4 miles each.

Anyway, bottom line, I think it quite possible for a message to be
delivered "overnight" from London to Northampton by a messenger. Although
the times quoted above were performances by 18th century thoroughbreds,
other times recorded suggest that today's Thoroughbred is not actually
significantly faster than its antecedents in the 18th century & that the
progressive lowering of running records is due to changes in running
surfaces, & style of riding. That coupled with the recent mtDNA evidence
suggesting a significant contribution to the modern breed from horses
native to the British Isles, leads me to the conclusion that fast horses
were always needed for certain purposes & would certainly have been
available to rich & powerful men, even in the 15th century.

A J



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > There are some things which don't really require proof because they are
> so
> much what you would expect that proof is required to argue that it *isn't*
> so. Can you produce documentary proof that Richard marched a small army
> from point to point across England turning up unexpectedly at each stop,
> and
> was still fed and housed?
>
> Of course, there's also the point that even if nobody in London knew
> Richard
> was coming, you would still expect somebody to send a message to him *in
> Yorkshire* to warn him that there was a coup taking place, expecting the
> message to reach him in Yorkshire probably in four or five days. Since
> there were only a limited number of good roads such a messenger might well
> encounter Richard's party en route, even if they hadn't expected to do so.
> Or they would just assume that he *might* be coming, and so send a
> messenger
> up every major road. It's not like they could miss him in the dark, with
> about 1500 horses in tow, and we can assume, I think, that anybody who had
> been put in charge of communications would be reasonably bright.
>
> The only issue is what time a messenger would have left London and how
> fast
> they would get to Northampton. We know it could be done in 18ý hours, but
> could it be done faster? If we stick with 18ý hours the messenger would
> have to have left London by the late morning to get to Richard by first
> light the next day, so then we need to know what time of day the treasure
> was taken. However, I'm fairly sure that it *could* be done significantly
> faster, unless the road was absolutely awash with mud.
>
>
>

Hilary Jones <wrote:
>
> http://unromanticrichardiii.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/anne-beauchamps-gold-tablet.html
>  
> I did a google and found this for you. H

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. At least it appears that Tony Pollard has backed down from his earlier stance that Richard kept the countess a prisoner at Middleham. Maybe he'll stop trusting Rous's post-Bosworth propaganda.

So does the idea that the Middleham Jewel, which to me looks like a very expensive but conventionally Catholic religious relic, relates to epilepsy and childbirth, which now appears as a "fact" on more than one website, also come from Pollard?

Carol

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



> It appears that the distance London - Northampton is in the region of 60
miles.

I make it about 65, allowing for wiggly roads.

> I've been looking at Coach advertisements from the 18th century

Clever!

> & it
appears that it was quite possible to make the distance in about 10 hours.

Yes, and that would be at a brisk trot, which is about 6mph. A canter would
be faster, although you'd have to change horses more often, and I suppose
the messenger would need at least one half-hour break along the way.

Which raises the question of why the queen's messenger took 18½ hours - he
must have stopped for a very long lunch somewhere. Or perhaps he felt a
need to be surreptitious about it, and so didn't change horses.

Marie responds:

Tablet would I think originally have been a diminutive of 'table'. Tablet at this period usually refers to a religious icon, made of wood or gold/silver, with religious images on it. Often these were reliquaries, and you find them belonging to churches. A "great table" suggests to me something of the same sort but on an unusally large scale, perhaps an altarpiece. Not the Middleham jewel, which though very fine is a small object; that would probably have been referred to simply as what it was, an Agnus Dei.

Gold tablets would generally have the pictures on them made of enamel, and a very fine one would also contain precious gems.
We have Margaret of Anjou's household accounts for 1453, including her New Year's gifts. She left Agnus Deis (or should that be Agni Dei?), and also a tablet to Walsingham. The Agni Dei were valued at roughly £10 each, and the tablet at £29.

I suspect the ro' ho' Smeathon referred to in the letter would probably have been (as I think Pollard himself half admits) some local Robin Hood plays.

---

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.
> >
> >
>
>
> Golden table, eh. I would blink twice, too...
>
> (The 'table' could easily be just inconsistent spelling, though. Both 'table' and 'tablet' derive from the same Old French roots, after all, and ultimately the Latin 'tabula'.)
>

I believe you could get a licence to own an English translation of the Bible.
Marie


--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I"ve read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe bible and was not heretical in the least. But as we all know I'm no expert and am just repeating what I read.
>
> Would Richard have taken Communion on August 22? Maire.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > To digress at little: did the Wycliffe bible conform to the catholic teachings or rejected some of the dogmas? My chief " source" (uhmm), is Wikipedia and they seem to give two different views in as many lines!
> > Ishita
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:40 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:19 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> > >
> > > > It's almost certainly false. Whether he prayed for victory or not, as a
> > > > devout Catholic he would have heard mass and given a last confession,
> > >
> > > Well - a devout Catholic who owned a Wycliffe bible, so a devout Catholic
> > > who would have been considered a flagrant heretic not very many years
> > > before, and attending a "we who might be about to die" mass doesn't preclude
> > > his refusing to have mass said for victory.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

No - all religious services were in Latin. He was the first king to have the entire records of his parliament written up in English.
Marie



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> > > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > > bible and was not heretical in the least.
> >
> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> > until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> > content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> > wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> > heavily punished.
> >
>
> Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.
>
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!
>
>
>
>
>
>

  As well as 'Holding Back' Progress in our understanding of the celestial universe by threatening Galileo, the medieval church held back Medical Progress, [With a few 'Brother Caedfael' exceptions] Then progress for women, [Sounds familiar Today methinks!] 

  Only the BEST inquisition lead 'Closed Shop Methods'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 19:58
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>
>No - all religious services were in Latin. He was the first king to have the entire records of his parliament written up in English.
>Marie
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby [email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
>> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>  
>>
>> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> >
>> > From: mairemulholland
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>> >
>> >
>> > > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
>> > > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>> >
>> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
>> > until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
>> > content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
>> > wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
>> > heavily punished.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.
>>
>> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard did make many statements that reveal him as a good Catholic, but I agree he may have been tolerant. One test may be to look at the wording of his oyer and terminer commissions - Edward IV frequently included lollardries amongst the crimes to be investigated. Did Richard do that, or not?
Incidentally, I've never encountered an indictment for lollardy amongst the oyer and terminer files for Edweard's reign, so maybe the commissioners tended to ignore.
Marie

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's whether Richard just wanted everyone to have accessto/understand the Bible in English or whether he was going down the full Lollard route which was direct line to God without the intercession of the Church ie the core of Protestantism (but I'm no theologian). My guess was, it was the former. Just as with the Law he wanted the common man to be able to understand it. I've never heard him talked on as a reformist. But that's just me of course. H 
> >
> >
>
> I think the former, as well.
>
> I do get the feeling that he was unusually tolerant for his time and saw religious faith as something essentially private, but that brings us back to those pesky little nuggets of information again... everybody interprets them their own way.
>

See my comments to Marie. Anne O'Brien is a romantic novelist and doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Tony Pollard is well respected in acadademic circles here and has been for 30 years. Just because he doesn't always tow the Ricardian line doesn't make him a poor historian. As I said to Marie I only started this by talking to Ishita about the Middelham Jewel, I have no axe to grind in either direction.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 17:25
Subject: Countess of Warwick's extravagance (Was: Exceptionally good article)

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I have read that, yes but you need to look at Pollard's assumptions that she was a disciple of St Penket (an obscure Anglo-Saxon saint). I actually thought the Court of the Midnight King was based on fantasy, which is what Freda Warrington specialises in. I was surprised to find that it either by chance, or by research, had some base in potential fact. So I don't rate Warrington on supposition but I do Pollard who isn't usually one to go off on flights on fancy.

Carol responds:

I don't know anything about Warrington, but Pollard certainly does go off on flights of fantasy (as when he tries to justify Rous's identifying Richard as a Scorpio (not realizing that Rous has Richard's birth date wrong and is referring to a rising sign rather than a birth sign). Whether his later books and articles are as bad as "The Princes in the Tower," I don't know, but that book makes far too many assumptions based on traditional sources. Without seeing his article, I can't tell for certain, but he could be going off the deep end with these Saint Penket speculations. (The only thing that I could find out about Saint Penket is that she's female, an Anglo-Saxon virgin and presumably a martyr of some sort.)

If the article I cited the other day by the novelist who wrote "Virgin Widow" (evidently just another romance novel) has any validity, the associations with childbirth and epilepsy that Pollard (apparently) mentions relate to the Hebrew and Latin inscriptions along the edges. If this assertion is true, and I have no way of verifying it, I doubt that they were requistioned by the Countess, who would have had no knowledge of either language. In fact, it seems odd that an goldsmith would have been able to inscribe Hebrew characters or have been able to read either language. If these inscriptions exist, maybe they were already on the reliquary when the countess bought it and she was only looking at the artwork (a Nativity scene on one side and the Crucifixion on the other), the quality of the artwork, and the beauty of the gold and that splendid sapphire.

But I really need to see Pollard's article before I can draw any conclusions about it. If the letter convinced him that Richard didn't keep the countess a prisoner, that's the main thing that matters to me.

Carol

But I thought he did at York? I know about the records of the parliament being in English.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

 


No - all religious services were in Latin. He was the first king to have the entire records of his parliament written up in English.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mairemulholland
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> > > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
> > > bible and was not heretical in the least.
> >
> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
> > until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
> > content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
> > wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
> > heavily punished.
> >
>
> Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.
>
> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would appreciate any guidance as to interesting historic churches in the area.
[I already hope to meet a Melton Mowbray Pie!!]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:28
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>It was there two weeks' ago. I was down by Rutland Water. 
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:26
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> 
>
>Aye, and there are parts of both counties that have bin moved in or out as the planners whims dictated.
>
>Mitton for one I think?
>
>Still look at Rutland, now you see it, now you don't, now you do!!
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur Wright.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: david rayner theblackprussian@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 20:29
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>
>> 
>>I'm from Yorkshire and in no way consider myself modern. Perish the thought.
>>
>>I was born in the West Riding (which is now in South Yorkshire), moved to the East Riding (which is now in North Yorkshire), and then moved to Humberside (which is now in East Yorkshire).
>>
>>Those southerners haven't half messed us about; two moves and I've lived in six "counties".
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 16:10
>>Subject: RE: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>
>> 
>>Arthur
>>
>>In response to Modern Yorkshireman existing&&&&&&I have absolutely no idea what you mean?
>>
>>I consider myself a (modern)Yorkshireman born in Leeds brought up in Sandal Magna Nr. Wakefield , once I discovered electricity and clothing ( wode was decidedly uncomfortable) I ended up at Leeds Uni. then Cambridge if I remember correctly both institutions had books.
>>
>>Having served with the RN ( we managed to understand nuclear propulsion) prior to moving to the USA I lived in London and had very little problems being assimilated into this collective. I ended up in silicon valley where they also have electricity , though little understanding of beer.
>>
>>George
>>
>>(Somewhat tongue in cheek)
>>
>>From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:36 AM
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>Ask George H
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: Arthurian lancastrian@... >
>>To: " " >
>>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:31
>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>Try & consider the effect of a modern Yorkshire man on Southerners,
>>{Do 'Modern' Yorkshire men exist? :-] }
>>
>>Kind Regards,
>>
>>Arthur.
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... >
>>>To:
>>>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 20:48
>>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Ishita Bandyo
>>>To:
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:06 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I think his reaction to his MIL's overspending shows
>>>> him as a "real" person. Heck, my husband and mother does not even talk to
>>>> each other!
>>>
>>>Yes, exactly - he's not More's villain but he's not the rather soppy Perfect
>>>Prince of some of the novels, either - bouncy, ratty, sarcastic (I'm
>>>thinking of his famous correspondence with the king of France!),
>>>fair-minded, nit-picking, loyal, tolerant, a martyr to toothache,
>>>chronically unable to delegate....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> See my comments to Marie. Anne O'Brien is a romantic novelist and doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Tony Pollard is well respected in acadademic circles here and has been for 30 years. Just because he doesn't always tow the Ricardian line doesn't make him a poor historian. As I said to Marie I only started this by talking to Ishita about the Middelham Jewel, I have no axe to grind in either direction.

Carol responds:

I guess we'll have to differ regarding Pollard's reliability as a historian (academic respectability and toeing the traditional line nay be more connected than most people realize, especially when favorable depictions are regarded as "revisionist") However, I doubt that we can convince each other, so there's no point in continuing that line of discussion.

Setting aside his Ricardian credentials, since he wrote several books on Robin Hood, the whole "rob ho" thing could be, as I think Marie suggested, an elaborate joke. I suspect that, like Sir Thomas More, the admittedly charming Pollard has a mischievous and ironic sense of humor. As I said, I can't judge the contents of his article without actually seeing it. But he does elsewhere state flat out that he believes Rous's statement that Richard kept the countess a prisoner for eight years, a "fact" that does not at all accord with the countess on a spending spree that Richard disapproves of. Whether the epilepsy, childbirth, and whirling dervish Anglo-Saxon virgin saint connections involving the Middleham Jewel are all part of the same elaborate joke, I can't say without access to the article. (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)

I do have one question regarding A. J. Pollard. What, if anything, is his connection to the late Tudor historian A. F. Pollard, who died in 1948 when Tony was about seven?

Carol

   It is believed a child's brain can learn other languages much easier than an adult can and that the learning of 'One' additional language 'Pre-disposes' the brain to learn another.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 21:05
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: pansydobersby
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>
>> > The ability to learn foreign languages tends to run in families, though,
>> > the way that musical ability does - of course it's possible that one
>> > sibling might be tone-deaf while others are talented musicians, but it's
>> > far more likely that the brother of a talented musician has at least some
>> > musical ability himself. Same with foreign languages.
>>
>> Eee - maybe, although my mother is tolerably good at foreign languages and
>> my father spoke multiple dialects of Chinese and, apparently, Polish as
>> well.
>>
>
>It's complicated, of course - I won't claim that any particular talent runs in families in such a simplistic way. But in languages, as well as musical ability, early exposure also plays an important role, even in the absence of talent. You don't need absolute pitch to learn the scales and you don't need to be Glenn Gould to learn to play Chopsticks as a child. Even if Richard was a complete dunce at languages and couldn't pronounce his way out of a paper bag, he'd certainly spent enough time abroad to train his ear a little bit, and I'm assuming he was capable of at least some basic conversation with foreign diplomats.
>
>Wasn't the long, personal prayer in his Book of Hours in Latin, too?
>
>
>
>
>

Man, I think Inland Revenue and IRS are doing a really great job of the Inquisition. If you haven't been audited, you have not felt the pain!!!!!

On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:17 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



As well as 'Holding Back' Progress in our understanding of the celestial universe by threatening Galileo, the medieval church held back Medical Progress, [With a few 'Brother Caedfael' exceptions] Then progress for women, [Sounds familiar Today methinks!]

Only the BEST inquisition lead 'Closed Shop Methods'.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 19:58
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
>
>No - all religious services were in Latin. He was the first king to have the entire records of his parliament written up in English.
>Marie
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Was he not the first King to hear a service in English in York?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:55
>> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>> ý
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> >
>> > From: mairemulholland
>> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>> >
>> >
>> > > I've read somewhere that his bible was an early version of the Wycliffe
>> > > bible and was not heretical in the least.
>> >
>> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical
>> > until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological
>> > content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who
>> > wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and
>> > heavily punished.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, and it wasn't just the act of translation either - there were also the associations with the Lollards' other opinions and activities, which were deemed both heretical AND seditious. It wasn't such a long time since Oldcastle's rebellion.
>>
>> I do find it terribly intriguing that Richard owned the Wycliffe Bible. I don't know what it actually says about the man - whether he was a 'secret heretic' or just interested in, and tolerant of, a great variety of different views - but it does say something. And that's the really intriguing part, as in so many other nuggets and details about him: not knowing what that something is!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't know about the Pollards but I doubt there's a connection. As I said to Marie, how did I get into this? Rather like the joke of the spinning Countess, though.  Only thing I would add that as he was a lecturer at a red brick uni/ ex -Poly I doubt AJ is particularly right wing    Cheers



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:54
Subject: Re: Countess of Warwick's extravagance (Was: Exceptionally good article)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> See my comments to Marie. Anne O'Brien is a romantic novelist and doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Tony Pollard is well respected in acadademic circles here and has been for 30 years. Just because he doesn't always tow the Ricardian line doesn't make him a poor historian. As I said to Marie I only started this by talking to Ishita about the Middelham Jewel, I have no axe to grind in either direction.

Carol responds:

I guess we'll have to differ regarding Pollard's reliability as a historian (academic respectability and toeing the traditional line nay be more connected than most people realize, especially when favorable depictions are regarded as "revisionist") However, I doubt that we can convince each other, so there's no point in continuing that line of discussion.

Setting aside his Ricardian credentials, since he wrote several books on Robin Hood, the whole "rob ho" thing could be, as I think Marie suggested, an elaborate joke. I suspect that, like Sir Thomas More, the admittedly charming Pollard has a mischievous and ironic sense of humor. As I said, I can't judge the contents of his article without actually seeing it. But he does elsewhere state flat out that he believes Rous's statement that Richard kept the countess a prisoner for eight years, a "fact" that does not at all accord with the countess on a spending spree that Richard disapproves of. Whether the epilepsy, childbirth, and whirling dervish Anglo-Saxon virgin saint connections involving the Middleham Jewel are all part of the same elaborate joke, I can't say without access to the article. (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)

I do have one question regarding A. J. Pollard. What, if anything, is his connection to the late Tudor historian A. F. Pollard, who died in 1948 when Tony was about seven?

Carol

  I wonder if we have more examples than we realise in OUR modern world of seizure of power in this way? I am referring to the situations developing around 'Young Sports Stars' & of Course 'Young Entertainers,' 

I am loath to quote examples [I don't want to be sued!!] However readers will recall many reported instances when Parents have been supplanted in the management of  those capable of generating vast wealth.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 16:56
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>What about the documents young Edward-when-he-was-actually-V signed that referred to Richard as "Protector"? Isn't there more than one of them? If so, that's a good indication that, however it came about, Richard was officially, incontrovertibly acknowledged as Edward's regent during his minority.
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry but I didn't ask for documentary evidence of a coup - I asked for documentary evidence of the messages to and from Richard and the timing of the messages, including one from Richard to London indicating his anticipated time of arrival which was mooted by Carol.  And to carry this further (though it was not the subject of my original comment) since we have no extant document from Edward appointing Richard Protector, you could say the Woodvilles were acting in self-defence and to proect the new king.  Being provocative. 
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:46
>> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>>
>>  
>>
>> >
>> > Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > >
>> > > . Until we find documentary evidence to prove allÃ’â¬a this we shall never really know what happened. Have we got the messages at either end, *do we have proof the Woodville's were planning a coup?* [Snip]
>> >
>> > Carol responds:
>> >
>> > Not proof, but the indisputable fact that Elizabeth Woodville hurried into sanctuary the moment she found that her son was being escorted by Richard rather than her brother Anthony certainly suggests that the Woodvilles were planning to thwart Richard's protectorate. And why else would Dorset have needed to flee the country? There was no reason to suspect at that time that Richard would try to deposed Edward and seek the throne himself.
>> >
>> Hilary responded:
>> > As I explained to Claire, Carol, I was talking about her assumptions about messengers and the timing of messages. Putting my Tudor hat on I could say that I, Elizabeth, have suspected for years that Richard might try this - look at brother George.à Only being provocative before you scalp me, but that's certainly what some have claimed, to mention one beginning with H.
>>
>> Carol again:
>>
>> You asked if we had proof that they were planning a coup. I provided evidence that, yes, they were. (There's plenty more that I didn't mention.) I was not responding to the messages question, to which I can add nothing except that, yes, somehow Richard did learn what the Woodvilles were up to. I was responding to your statement about documentary evidence other than the missing messages and specifically to your question, "Do we have proof that the Woodvilles were planning a coup." That's why I snipped the quote to emphasize that part of your post and not the whole thing.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Why do we think it is the Countess's? It could have been anyone who was visiting..... Or Anne's.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:40 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Marie responds:
>
> Tablet would I think originally have been a diminutive of 'table'. Tablet at this period usually refers to a religious icon, made of wood or gold/silver, with religious images on it. Often these were reliquaries, and you find them belonging to churches. A "great table" suggests to me something of the same sort but on an unusally large scale, perhaps an altarpiece. Not the Middleham jewel, which though very fine is a small object; that would probably have been referred to simply as what it was, an Agnus Dei.
>
> Gold tablets would generally have the pictures on them made of enamel, and a very fine one would also contain precious gems.
> We have Margaret of Anjou's household accounts for 1453, including her New Year's gifts. She left Agnus Deis (or should that be Agni Dei?), and also a tablet to Walsingham. The Agni Dei were valued at roughly £10 each, and the tablet at £29.
>
> I suspect the ro' ho' Smeathon referred to in the letter would probably have been (as I think Pollard himself half admits) some local Robin Hood plays.
>
> ---
>
> --- In , pansydobersby wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Pollard actually quotes the letter as saying table not tablet and he doesn't know for sure what it was.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Golden table, eh. I would blink twice, too...
> >
> > (The 'table' could easily be just inconsistent spelling, though. Both 'table' and 'tablet' derive from the same Old French roots, after all, and ultimately the Latin 'tabula'.)
> >
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



> Why do we think it is the Countess's? It could have been anyone who was
> visiting..... Or Anne's.

Only because it sounds rather like the (incomplete) description of the
expensive jewel Richard was bitching about. Most sources seem to date it
1460-1470, which I suppose would make it the countess's, but from before her
husband's death. Maybe she lost it, and then she commissioned a
replacement.

As I understand it his brother Edward IV was ill prior to his demise. This may WELL have given prior warning of events 'Set in train' by his death.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 17:39
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:30 PM
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>> There are some things which don't really require proof because they are so
>much what you would expect that proof is required to argue that it *isn't*
>so. Can you produce documentary proof that Richard marched a small army
>from point to point across England turning up unexpectedly at each stop, and
>was still fed and housed?
>
>Of course, there's also the point that even if nobody in London knew Richard
>was coming, you would still expect somebody to send a message to him *in
>Yorkshire* to warn him that there was a coup taking place, expecting the
>message to reach him in Yorkshire probably in four or five days. Since
>there were only a limited number of good roads such a messenger might well
>encounter Richard's party en route, even if they hadn't expected to do so.
>Or they would just assume that he *might* be coming, and so send a messenger
>up every major road. It's not like they could miss him in the dark, with
>about 1500 horses in tow, and we can assume, I think, that anybody who had
>been put in charge of communications would be reasonably bright.
>
>The only issue is what time a messenger would have left London and how fast
>they would get to Northampton. We know it could be done in 18½ hours, but
>could it be done faster? If we stick with 18½ hours the messenger would
>have to have left London by the late morning to get to Richard by first
>light the next day, so then we need to know what time of day the treasure
>was taken. However, I'm fairly sure that it *could* be done significantly
>faster, unless the road was absolutely awash with mud.
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)
>


I wonder if people mean the word 'Ananizapta' when they refer to that 'Hebrew inscription'? Though nobody seems to know for sure what that word really means (and it's not Hebrew, anyway).

http://www.ingolstadt.de/stadtmuseum/scheuerer/ing/ananiz04.htm

He seemingly welcomed Von Poppelau in Low German.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No. Edward and Warwick spoke fluent French they were commended by Louis XI. and spoke with him without interpreters.  There's no reason to think Richard wasn't equally good at languages
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 19:17
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>  
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > And I think he took his coronation oath in English.
> From all these little nuggets it seems he was a free thinker and a
> progressive sort who was proud of being an English man.
>
> Or possibly - let us be honest - really bad at learning foreign languages.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
> > The mere fact of the Wycliffe bible's existence was considered heretical until very recently relative to Richard's time - it wasn't the theological content, it was the fact that it had been translated at all. People who wanted to read holy works in their own language were called Lollards and heavily punished.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The Lancastrians occasionally burned heretics; the Yorkists never did.

The London chronicles record the burning of a heretic called ?John Goos in the 1470s.
Marie




We see the Tudors also performing executions related to religion once Henry VIII established the Anglican church (and Mary I reestablished Catholicism). But Richard's possession of a Wycliffe Bible suggests a different, more tolerant attitude. He was certainly in favor of religious reform in terms of eliminating corruption within the Church and having the priests set an example of clean living, but he had no other proto-Protestant leanings to my knowledge. He certainly was not the puritan that some writers, even Kendall, have (anachronistically) made him out to be (he took pleasure in music and pageantry, whether religious or secular), and he would have scrupulously observed all religious rituals and requirements, including the daily celebration of Mass.
>
> Carol
>

A.F. wrote the original DNB article on Thomas Stafford (succeeded by Hicks).

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Countess of Warwick's extravagance (Was: Exceptionally good article)





--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> See my comments to Marie. Anne O'Brien is a romantic novelist and doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Tony Pollard is well respected in acadademic circles here and has been for 30 years. Just because he doesn't always tow the Ricardian line doesn't make him a poor historian. As I said to Marie I only started this by talking to Ishita about the Middelham Jewel, I have no axe to grind in either direction.

Carol responds:

I guess we'll have to differ regarding Pollard's reliability as a historian (academic respectability and toeing the traditional line nay be more connected than most people realize, especially when favorable depictions are regarded as "revisionist") However, I doubt that we can convince each other, so there's no point in continuing that line of discussion.

Setting aside his Ricardian credentials, since he wrote several books on Robin Hood, the whole "rob ho" thing could be, as I think Marie suggested, an elaborate joke. I suspect that, like Sir Thomas More, the admittedly charming Pollard has a mischievous and ironic sense of humor. As I said, I can't judge the contents of his article without actually seeing it. But he does elsewhere state flat out that he believes Rous's statement that Richard kept the countess a prisoner for eight years, a "fact" that does not at all accord with the countess on a spending spree that Richard disapproves of. Whether the epilepsy, childbirth, and whirling dervish Anglo-Saxon virgin saint connections involving the Middleham Jewel are all part of the same elaborate joke, I can't say without access to the article. (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)

I do have one question regarding A. J. Pollard. What, if anything, is his connection to the late Tudor historian A. F. Pollard, who died in 1948 when Tony was about seven?

Carol

Hilary wrote:
>
> Don't know about the Pollards but I doubt there's a connection. As I said to Marie, how did I get into this? Rather like the joke of the spinning Countess, though.  Only thing I would add that as he was a lecturer at a red brick uni/ ex -Poly I doubt AJ is particularly right wing   

Carol responds:

I didn't say anything about "right wing" or politics (other than the politics of academia as they relate to tenure and prestige). "Revisionist" histories, especially as they relate to Richard III, are not considered respectable in some academic circles, in part because of the focus on the Tudors (whose continuity with the Yorkists and dependence on Yorkist policy in some respects has not been sufficiently noticed) and in part because many scholars, especially those specializing in the early humanists, still regard Sir Thomas More's "History" as historically accurate. So our Tony has played it safe and clung to tradition. Have you read his "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower"? It's one of those books that I can't read without stopping every five minutes to argue with the author. Any more than twenty minutes of him and I have to take a break and read something else.

He was a cocky little so-and-so back when he appeared in "The Trial of Richard III" (what a pair he and angry-mouse Starkey made!), but seems to have mellowed considerably to judge by his moderate traditionalist stance in the documentary.

As I said, I wouldn't put it past him to participate in an elaborate academic joke.

I'd still like to know whether there's any connection between him and the Tudor historian A. F. Pollard. Uncle-nephew, maybe?

Carol

I'm short-sighted myself, and left-handed, so it would be nice to think Richard was too. But I'm whooly unconvinced since he was such a great fighter. I understand there were no left-handed weapons back then, and there were certainly no specs that corrected myopia, only long-sightedness.
Marie



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> > Richard needing glasses? Hmmm...another interesting theory! Maire.
>
> It's not something we're ever likely to know for sure but that's what that
> rather peering expression looks like. Also his skull looks like it has very
> deep eye-sockets, and the deeper the eyeball from front to back, the more
> likely the person is to be myopic - it's to do with focal length.
>

Arthur wrote:
>
> As I understand it his brother Edward IV was ill prior to his demise. This may WELL have given prior warning of events 'Set in train' by his death.

Carol responds:

Plans by the Woodville faction, do you mean (especially if they knew that Edward wanted Richard as Lord Protector)? Richard himself was at Middleham and didn't even know of Edward's death until about a week after it had happened. Whether the council informed him or Hastings alone wrote to him (as Mancini indicates), one thing is certain. It certainly wasn't the Woodvilles, who were already acting in the name of the king (with Dorset as "the king's uterine brother") with no legal authority to do so (and who scuttled into sanctuary or out of the country when the person who did have that authority both by blood and rank even if he had not yet been formally named Protector, took custody of the young king).

I asked once before why people think that EW went into sanctuary ut got almost no response. Was it because she feared punishment for her known illegal actions (which even the Croyland chronicler deplores)? Was there more to her plans to thwart the Protectorship that she feared Richard would find out and punish? Or did she fear a power struggle that her faction was at that point certain to lose now that the king's escort had been reduced (and the wagons full of armor and weapons confiscated)? Or something else altogether that I haven't thought of? (If she feared that Richard planned to harm Edward, as seems highly unlikely at this point given his status as a valuable commodity and the seemingly rightful king, it was surely cowardly to protect herself instead of her son. Even if Richard had been, as traditionalist historians assume, aiming at the throne at this early stage, Elizabeth could not have known it.)

Carol

I meant that news of Edward's illness [& perhaps Woodville Plotting?] may WELL have leaked up to Middleham. 

Surely regular letters, IF NOT 'Regular Reports' passed between the TWO 'Courts' Crown & Lord of the North. 

Wives to Husbands on Northern service?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 23:46
>Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
> 
>
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it his brother Edward IV was ill prior to his demise. This may WELL have given prior warning of events 'Set in train' by his death.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Plans by the Woodville faction, do you mean (especially if they knew that Edward wanted Richard as Lord Protector)? Richard himself was at Middleham and didn't even know of Edward's death until about a week after it had happened. Whether the council informed him or Hastings alone wrote to him (as Mancini indicates), one thing is certain. It certainly wasn't the Woodvilles, who were already acting in the name of the king (with Dorset as "the king's uterine brother") with no legal authority to do so (and who scuttled into sanctuary or out of the country when the person who did have that authority both by blood and rank even if he had not yet been formally named Protector, took custody of the young king).
>
>I asked once before why people think that EW went into sanctuary ut got almost no response. Was it because she feared punishment for her known illegal actions (which even the Croyland chronicler deplores)? Was there more to her plans to thwart the Protectorship that she feared Richard would find out and punish? Or did she fear a power struggle that her faction was at that point certain to lose now that the king's escort had been reduced (and the wagons full of armor and weapons confiscated)? Or something else altogether that I haven't thought of? (If she feared that Richard planned to harm Edward, as seems highly unlikely at this point given his status as a valuable commodity and the seemingly rightful king, it was surely cowardly to protect herself instead of her son. Even if Richard had been, as traditionalist historians assume, aiming at the throne at this early stage, Elizabeth could not have known it.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article



> I'm short-sighted myself, and left-handed, so it would be nice to think
> Richard was too. But I'm whooly unconvinced since he was such a great
> fighter. I understand there were no left-handed weapons back then,

Do we know what weapons he used? I don't actually think swords or
battleaxes had any handedness. Basket-hilt swords do but I don't think they
were around yet.

> and there were certainly no specs that corrected myopia, only
> long-sightedness.

If his eyes were as deep as they look he'd have to be myopic - he'd just
have to squint.

Carol earlier:
> > (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)
> >
>
Pansy {okay if I call you that?) wrote:
> I wonder if people mean the word 'Ananizapta' when they refer to that 'Hebrew inscription'? Though nobody seems to know for sure what that word really means (and it's not Hebrew, anyway).
>
> http://www.ingolstadt.de/stadtmuseum/scheuerer/ing/ananiz04.htm

Carol responds:

Interesting. That certainly makes more sense than the idea (from Anne O'Brien) that the Middleham Jewel had Latin and Hebrew inscriptions relating to childbirth and a spell to ward off epilepsy. I'm still trying to figure out whether the epilepsy and childbirth idea originates with Pollard, and, if not, where it comes from. Susan Higginbotham says nothing about either topic in her blog on Pollard's article. Has anyone had a chance to consult Pollard's article in the source she mentions, "Much Heaving and Shoving: Late-Medieval Gentry and Their Concerns, Essays for Colin Richmond,: edited by Margaret Aston and Rosemary Horrox?

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
>
>
> > I'm short-sighted myself, and left-handed, so it would be nice to think
> > Richard was too. But I'm whooly unconvinced since he was such a great
> > fighter. I understand there were no left-handed weapons back then,
>
> Do we know what weapons he used? I don't actually think swords or
> battleaxes had any handedness. Basket-hilt swords do but I don't think they
> were around yet.
>
> > and there were certainly no specs that corrected myopia, only
> > long-sightedness.
>
> If his eyes were as deep as they look he'd have to be myopic - he'd just
> have to squint.
>

Marie:
I have been told by re-enactors that no left-handed weapons have been found - fighting left-handed wasn't an allowed option, any more than writing left-handed. If Richard had been left-handed either he would have fought righthanded and been rubbish or else his enemies would have had a field day telling us about ths proof of his demonic ways.
Also, I don't quite understand how the deep set of the eyes connects with myopia, which is generally to do with the eyeballs being too long back-front. If that affected the set, wouldn't it actually make them stick out? I have never heard this one before and obviously I'm interested.

Claire wrote:
> If his eyes were as deep as they look he'd have to be myopic - he'd just have to squint.

Carol responds:

It's the shape of the eyeball, not the eye socket, that causes myopia (and astigmatism and long-sightedness, as you British call it).

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1517/mainpageS1517P0.html

(Aha. Hyperopia. That's the word I was trying to think of.)


And, of course, we can't see the shape of Richard's eyeball even in the most accurate painting. I don't see the squint in the NPG painting, in any case His eyes are wide open (if not particularly large).

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw05304/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=1

Carol

As someone who is seriously myopic, rather than look at Richard (who is simply squinting a bit in his portrait), look at photos of John Lennon. It is a heavy-lidded look that distinguishes a myopic person. Leslie Howard had that quality too - it was considered sexy in his case. I can spot a near-sighted (short sighted?) person very easily. They look like me! They don't look like Richard. Maire

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm short-sighted myself, and left-handed, so it would be nice to think
> > > Richard was too. But I'm whooly unconvinced since he was such a great
> > > fighter. I understand there were no left-handed weapons back then,
> >
> > Do we know what weapons he used? I don't actually think swords or
> > battleaxes had any handedness. Basket-hilt swords do but I don't think they
> > were around yet.
> >
> > > and there were certainly no specs that corrected myopia, only
> > > long-sightedness.
> >
> > If his eyes were as deep as they look he'd have to be myopic - he'd just
> > have to squint.
> >
>
> Marie:
> I have been told by re-enactors that no left-handed weapons have been found - fighting left-handed wasn't an allowed option, any more than writing left-handed. If Richard had been left-handed either he would have fought righthanded and been rubbish or else his enemies would have had a field day telling us about ths proof of his demonic ways.
> Also, I don't quite understand how the deep set of the eyes connects with myopia, which is generally to do with the eyeballs being too long back-front. If that affected the set, wouldn't it actually make them stick out? I have never heard this one before and obviously I'm interested.
>

> Marie:
I have been told by re-enactors that no left-handed weapons have been
found -

Yes, but most of the weapons in Richard's day just didn't have any sort of
handedness. I'm pretty sure longbows did, and possibly also crossbows, and
maybe some of the more outré daggers, but I don't think handedness in most
weapons becomes an issue until you get guns and basket-hilt swords coming
in. Cross-hilt swords and daggers and things like morningstars could be
used with either hand, and a battle-axe or a really big broadsword would
probably be used with both. And of course, if you used a two-handed or
hand-and-a-half weapon, nobody could tell which hand was dominant.

I hope the forensic team will actually tell us whether the damage to his
shoulder is post mortem or in vivo. Both his shoulder blades are a bit
damaged, as you would expect since it's a thin bone subject to loss from
decay, but the right one has two great cracks or seams across it and the
head of the joint snapped off.

> Also, I don't quite understand how the deep set of the eyes connects with
> myopia, which is generally to do with the eyeballs being too long
> back-front. If that affected the set, wouldn't it actually make them stick
> out? I have never heard this one before and obviously I'm interested.

I mean that deep eye-sockets, relative to their width, suggest that in life
they accommodated eyes which were long from front to back. If his eyes sat
in deep sockets but *weren't* long from front to back then they would appear
very deep-set, which they don't seem to be in the portraits. It's hard to
be sure without exact measurements and comparisons with average skulls but
they do *look* deep.

It's a very strange sensation to be looking at the bones of that bouncy,
energetic boy - doubly strange for me because he looked so like my lovely
friend John who died two years ago. But then we have the actual skull of
Philip of Macedon, which I guess is ten times wierder. I can see why the
Celts had a cult of the head.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article

> It's the shape of the eyeball, not the eye socket, that causes myopia (and
> astigmatism and long-sightedness, as you British call it).

Yes, but the eyeball *fits* the eyesocket, fairly closely.

Oh! Sounds reasonable!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:16 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
>
> > Why do we think it is the Countess's? It could have been anyone who was
> > visiting..... Or Anne's.
>
> Only because it sounds rather like the (incomplete) description of the
> expensive jewel Richard was bitching about. Most sources seem to date it
> 1460-1470, which I suppose would make it the countess's, but from before her
> husband's death. Maybe she lost it, and then she commissioned a
> replacement.
>
>

Hilary, I am sure no one is blaming or holding you responsible for anything. It's another thing we are learning. I hope you don't feel that by answering my question( I can't remember what it was) you have jumped in the deep end!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Don't know about the Pollards but I doubt there's a connection. As I said to Marie, how did I get into this? Rather like the joke of the spinning Countess, though. Only thing I would add that as he was a lecturer at a red brick uni/ ex -Poly I doubt AJ is particularly right wing Cheers
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:54
> Subject: Re: Countess of Warwick's extravagance (Was: Exceptionally good article)
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > See my comments to Marie. Anne O'Brien is a romantic novelist and doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Tony Pollard is well respected in acadademic circles here and has been for 30 years. Just because he doesn't always tow the Ricardian line doesn't make him a poor historian. As I said to Marie I only started this by talking to Ishita about the Middelham Jewel, I have no axe to grind in either direction.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I guess we'll have to differ regarding Pollard's reliability as a historian (academic respectability and toeing the traditional line nay be more connected than most people realize, especially when favorable depictions are regarded as "revisionist") However, I doubt that we can convince each other, so there's no point in continuing that line of discussion.
>
> Setting aside his Ricardian credentials, since he wrote several books on Robin Hood, the whole "rob ho" thing could be, as I think Marie suggested, an elaborate joke. I suspect that, like Sir Thomas More, the admittedly charming Pollard has a mischievous and ironic sense of humor. As I said, I can't judge the contents of his article without actually seeing it. But he does elsewhere state flat out that he believes Rous's statement that Richard kept the countess a prisoner for eight years, a "fact" that does not at all accord with the countess on a spending spree that Richard disapproves of. Whether the epilepsy, childbirth, and whirling dervish Anglo-Saxon virgin saint connections involving the Middleham Jewel are all part of the same elaborate joke, I can't say without access to the article. (If anyone with better eyesight than mine can detect Hebrew inscriptions along the edges, I would appreciate your verifying or disproving their existence.)
>
> I do have one question regarding A. J. Pollard. What, if anything, is his connection to the late Tudor historian A. F. Pollard, who died in 1948 when Tony was about seven?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"I asked once before why people think that EW went into sanctuary ut got
almost no response. Was it because she feared punishment for her known
illegal actions (which even the Croyland chronicler deplores)? Was there
more to her plans to thwart the Protectorship that she feared Richard would
find out and punish? Or did she fear a power struggle that her faction was
at that point certain to lose now that the king's escort had been reduced
(and the wagons full of armor and weapons confiscated)? Or something else
altogether that I haven't thought of? (If she feared that Richard planned to
harm Edward, as seems highly unlikely at this point given his status as a
valuable commodity and the seemingly rightful king, it was surely cowardly
to protect herself instead of her son. Even if Richard had been, as
traditionalist historians assume, aiming at the throne at this early stage,
Elizabeth could not have known it.)"

Doug here:
It is puzzling, though, isn't it? It's almost as if she was in fear of her
life...
How about the following:
I have the sense that EW and the rest of her family knew full well that IF
Richard became Protector, then they could kiss having ANY influence in the
governing of the country. Which meant all those offices and salaries and
fines and grants wouldn't go to the Woodvilles or their adherents... So the
question is, how far were they willing to go?
Richard wouldn't actually become Protector until the Council met and agreed
to accept
Edward's will, would he? Until then, EW's attempt to have her son crowned
weren't illegal per se, just really dumb
For me it all goes back to those wagons with their loads of arms. Arms that
would be useful in overawing London. If the Woodvilles controlled London, it
might not matter when, or even whether, Richard arrived. Edward (V) would be
crowned one day and by that afternoon or evening there'd be a government in
place - completely controlled by the Woodvilles, of course. But the arms and
the men with Sir Anthony HAD to get to London before Richard - and they
didn't.
And it was when EW and those around her realized where Sir Anthony was and
where Richard was, that they realized they dare not let Richard get to
London. If a messanger from Hastings could get to Richard, one from EW could
get to Sir Anthony. And so an ambush was planned...
Whether Protector yet or not, Richard was STILL Constable of England and
plotting the death of the Constable was treason. Even if EW hadn't been been
the one to write the message to Sir Anthony, even if she hadn't actually
planned the "ambush", there would be no doubt she was deeply involved. Would
that be enough to cause a flight into sanctuary?
Now, if there was also anything to the rumor about Edward IV being
poisoned... Well, let's just say I wouldn't have stopped with sanctuary in
Westminster, I'd have been on that ship with Dorset!
For Heaven's sake, feel free to tear this apart! I don't think I've made in
errors in facts, but then most of the above is speculation so I'm not
certain what standard/s to apply..
Doug

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > The one exception is his very reasonable explanation of Richard's supposed abuse of the Countess of Oxford, a charge stemming from Tudor times and repeated as fact by Susan Higginbotham and others.
>
> Claire responded:
> > I don't know what Fields made of it, but even if the bare bones of it were all true, Higginbotham tried to smuggle an unsupported assumption in under the cloak of "no doubt". [snip]
> >
> > She sees a young thug terrorising an old lady - I see a skinny little youth confronting a grand dame, and a conversation something like this: [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't remember the whole analysis, which was about a page and a half long, but no one accused Richard of avarice in that case until after the Countess's death, when the Earl of Oxford (Henry's general at Bosworth) wanted to get back the lands that had been taken away from his as an attainted traitor. Richard's agreement with the countess, which she had signed, allowed her to live in one of the manors with a pension of 500 marks a year. If it weren't for that agreement, she would simply have been the widow and mother of traitors previously executed by Edward and now the mother of a second attainted traitor. Richard could hardly restore lands that Edward had taken away and given to him, but he could and did make sure that the countess lived comfortably in her own home.


Marie replies:
In the Countess of Oxford's case King Edward hadn't confiscated her lands, but there seems no doubt she was in collusion with her son. My interpretation of the evidence is that Richard was trying to find a way to prevent the Countess engaging in further sedition and funding her son's activities short of having the elderly lady indicted for treason and shut up in the Tower. House arrest in his own household at Middleham was evidently another option he offered her, which did not appeal. Essentially, she got her feoffees to make estate to Richard of her lands, and he agreed to fund certain things from the proceeds such as her own allowance, support for her son at Cambridge, etc. It's interesting that not one of the Earl's witnesses in the 1490s claimed to have seen Richard bullying her.

Apologies for leaping into a question that's probably already been far better answered by far better correspondents... There's quite a division of opinion on that, though. Some sources say Edward IV had been ill for some time, and some others say that his abrupt decline and death were a profound shock, given that he was still relatively young and a picture of health. More, in one of his more puzzling departures from easily-checked fact, made Edward a dozen years older than he was at the time of his death, which could be anything, but might well be a subtle way of insinuating that everybody expected he wasn't going to be around much longer.

One chronicler--and, of course, I can't for the life of me remember where I read this--says that a false rumor of Edward's death made it to Richard in the north a week and a half before Edward's decline and death. That report fueled rumors that Edward had been poisoned, which has been, for many years, the go-to speculative cause of death for anyone who was fine at noon and gasping by midnight.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> As I understand it his brother Edward IV was ill prior to his demise. This may WELL have given prior warning of events 'Set in train' by his death.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 17:39
> >Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >
> > 
> >From: Claire M Jordan
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:30 PM
> >Subject: Re: Exceptionally good article
> >
> >> There are some things which don't really require proof because they are so
> >much what you would expect that proof is required to argue that it *isn't*
> >so. Can you produce documentary proof that Richard marched a small army
> >from point to point across England turning up unexpectedly at each stop, and
> >was still fed and housed?
> >
> >Of course, there's also the point that even if nobody in London knew Richard
> >was coming, you would still expect somebody to send a message to him *in
> >Yorkshire* to warn him that there was a coup taking place, expecting the
> >message to reach him in Yorkshire probably in four or five days. Since
> >there were only a limited number of good roads such a messenger might well
> >encounter Richard's party en route, even if they hadn't expected to do so.
> >Or they would just assume that he *might* be coming, and so send a messenger
> >up every major road. It's not like they could miss him in the dark, with
> >about 1500 horses in tow, and we can assume, I think, that anybody who had
> >been put in charge of communications would be reasonably bright.
> >
> >The only issue is what time a messenger would have left London and how fast
> >they would get to Northampton. We know it could be done in 18½ hours, but
> >could it be done faster? If we stick with 18½ hours the messenger would
> >have to have left London by the late morning to get to Richard by first
> >light the next day, so then we need to know what time of day the treasure
> >was taken. However, I'm fairly sure that it *could* be done significantly
> >faster, unless the road was absolutely awash with mud.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>