Clarence
Clarence
2003-08-02 06:31:24
Could someone please tell me if George Duke of Clarence was in the
London area in May or June, 1476?
Katy
London area in May or June, 1476?
Katy
Clarence
2005-06-25 14:53:42
From : Sandi du Plessis
Date : 24.06.05
Re: Clarence
In many of the books I have read, Clarence is described as having a similar
physique to Edward i.e. tall and blonde. Does anyone know if there is any
factual evidence for this ?
Regards
Sandi
Date : 24.06.05
Re: Clarence
In many of the books I have read, Clarence is described as having a similar
physique to Edward i.e. tall and blonde. Does anyone know if there is any
factual evidence for this ?
Regards
Sandi
Clarence
2008-02-04 20:28:35
Just replied to an anti Richard blog on the internet which states that
"On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders of
King Richard III."
My answer reads:-
18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally incorrect.
George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders of
his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King Richard
III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already left
the capital before Clarence was executed.
He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly from
Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and is
most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre means
of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
Leave Richard III alone!
I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and propaganda!
Paul
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
"On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders of
King Richard III."
My answer reads:-
18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally incorrect.
George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders of
his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King Richard
III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already left
the capital before Clarence was executed.
He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly from
Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and is
most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre means
of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
Leave Richard III alone!
I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and propaganda!
Paul
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
Re: Clarence
2008-02-05 17:55:47
Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
beheaded on trumped-up charges.
According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
the time of the trial.
Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
of Clarence is nonesense.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Just replied to an anti Richard blog on the internet which states
that
>
> "On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
> malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders
of
> King Richard III."
>
>
> My answer reads:-
>
> 18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally
incorrect.
> George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders
of
> his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King
Richard
> III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already
left
> the capital before Clarence was executed.
> He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly
from
> Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and
is
> most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre
means
> of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
>
> Leave Richard III alone!
>
> I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
> fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and
propaganda!
> Paul
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
beheaded on trumped-up charges.
According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
the time of the trial.
Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
of Clarence is nonesense.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Just replied to an anti Richard blog on the internet which states
that
>
> "On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
> malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders
of
> King Richard III."
>
>
> My answer reads:-
>
> 18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally
incorrect.
> George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders
of
> his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King
Richard
> III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already
left
> the capital before Clarence was executed.
> He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly
from
> Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and
is
> most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre
means
> of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
>
> Leave Richard III alone!
>
> I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
> fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and
propaganda!
> Paul
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Clarence
2008-02-05 21:18:55
According to Hicks black is white some days! When he wants it to that
is.
Paul
On 5 Feb 2008, at 17:55, theblackprussian wrote:
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just replied to an anti Richard blog on the internet which states
> that
>>
>> "On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
>> malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders
> of
>> King Richard III."
>>
>>
>> My answer reads:-
>>
>> 18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally
> incorrect.
>> George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders
> of
>> his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King
> Richard
>> III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already
> left
>> the capital before Clarence was executed.
>> He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly
> from
>> Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and
> is
>> most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre
> means
>> of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
>>
>> Leave Richard III alone!
>>
>> I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
>> fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and
> propaganda!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
is.
Paul
On 5 Feb 2008, at 17:55, theblackprussian wrote:
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just replied to an anti Richard blog on the internet which states
> that
>>
>> "On 18th February George Duke of Clarence was drowned in a butt of
>> malmsey. No he didn't fall in drunk, he was murdered on the orders
> of
>> King Richard III."
>>
>>
>> My answer reads:-
>>
>> 18th February entry about George Duke of Clarence totally
> incorrect.
>> George was executed privately in the Tower of London on the orders
> of
>> his brother King Edward IV. His brother Richard, later King
> Richard
>> III, having failed pleading for mercy with the king, had already
> left
>> the capital before Clarence was executed.
>> He was most probably beheaded. The drowning legend comes mainly
> from
>> Shakespeare, and More, both writing anti Richard propaganda, and
> is
>> most probably a comment on his alcoholism than such a bizarre
> means
>> of execution, unknown in reality anywhere in history.
>>
>> Leave Richard III alone!
>>
>> I'm getting fed up with all these attacks on Richard, based not on
>> fact, only on Shakespeare and the sainted More's lies and
> propaganda!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
Re: Clarence
2008-02-08 22:09:08
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
I would imagine that Richard had rather complicated feelings towards
Clarence.
Clarence tried to prevent Richard's marriage to Anne Neville, in order
to keep the potential Neville inheritance and titles for himself
through his marriage to Anne's elder sister.
Clarence also was allowed (compelled?) to stay at court while
12-year-old Richard was traveling around the country recruiting men
for the King's army. I always wondered about that.
On the other hand, Clarence and Richard spent a lot of time together,
separated from their family and country, during the impressionable
childhood years, and Richard may have felt that he was in the
protection of three-years-older Clarence.
And loyalty was Richard's motto. I can well see him giving a spirited
and heart-felt advocay of Clarence's case, then heading back North
while Edward did what he decided to do.
Katy
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
I would imagine that Richard had rather complicated feelings towards
Clarence.
Clarence tried to prevent Richard's marriage to Anne Neville, in order
to keep the potential Neville inheritance and titles for himself
through his marriage to Anne's elder sister.
Clarence also was allowed (compelled?) to stay at court while
12-year-old Richard was traveling around the country recruiting men
for the King's army. I always wondered about that.
On the other hand, Clarence and Richard spent a lot of time together,
separated from their family and country, during the impressionable
childhood years, and Richard may have felt that he was in the
protection of three-years-older Clarence.
And loyalty was Richard's motto. I can well see him giving a spirited
and heart-felt advocay of Clarence's case, then heading back North
while Edward did what he decided to do.
Katy
Re: Clarence
2008-02-09 04:28:41
see below
comments interspersed
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
I would imagine that Richard had rather complicated feelings towards
Clarence.
======
richard and george were the youngest sons of richard of york. they were often under their mother's care and fleeing or in hiding.
this alone would have caused quite a bond between them. they never knew if they would live or die. the deaths of their father and brother edmund would have played an incredibly significant role in how the boys related.
*if* richard had looked up to geo with big brother worship. that would have been supplanted by richard being *awed* by bigger brother edward revenging his father and brother's death and moreover becoming king by conquest. it is interesting to also consider richard was about the same age as the younger prince in the tower, richard at the time of this event.
Clarence tried to prevent Richard's marriage to Anne Neville, in order
to keep the potential Neville inheritance and titles for himself
through his marriage to Anne's elder sister.
===
i think it also needs to be considered what role warwick would or could have had in further alienating the brothers. let us not forget that isabel may have also played a significant role in trying to control her sister anne's destiny.
anne and isabel are for the most part simply female names and considered without any power. their mother had been "put in her place" by edward and possibly by george's words. richard and anne "rescued" anne beauchamp and her come live with them. why didn't george and isabel? it would be interesting to investigate the dynamics anne beauchamp had with her daughters.
Clarence also was allowed (compelled?) to stay at court while
12-year-old Richard was traveling around the country recruiting men
for the King's army. I always wondered about that.
====
would george have been kept at court because at the time..george was next in line for the throne? these were still dangerous times.
again, i find it interesting... richard travelling about the country when 12, again about the same age as e5 when, e5 became king. i wonder if this experience helped richard determine what needed to be done with regard to his role as protector.
was warwick travelling with richard as a mentor? and if so, was anne neville part of the entourage?
one has to wonder how richard felt with regard to warwick. anne and richard had essentially grown up together. in their era many of their peers would have been betrothed. yet neither appears to have been. was richard ever betrothed to anyone prior to his marriage to anne? how would richard have felt with regard to warwick marrying anne to h6's son edward.
george was heir apparent to that prince edward. according to halstead, prince edward died on the battlefield...calling to george for assistance. did george betray edward? did prince edward not realise that george had changed sides? did george kill prince edward?
the reward to george for killing prince edward would be..he was heir to the throne of h6 and, if george could prove e4 was illegit..then george was also heir to the house of york for the throne. anne was simply the widow of someone who stood in george's way.
george would have significant motivation to keep richard or ANYONE from marrying anne. the beauchamp inheritance could be used to fund an army against his brother, e4.
edward and woodville couldn't afford that. no wonder edward gave richard his blessing to marry anne. george already had power. edward had to decrease it. it was handy his little brother wanted anne for whatever reasons.
====
On the other hand, Clarence and Richard spent a lot of time together,
separated from their family and country, during the impressionable
childhood years, and Richard may have felt that he was in the
protection of three-years-older Clarence.
===
i agree this may have played a significant role in richard's emotions towards his brother..but george wasn't his only brother..and e4 even topped geo on that level. e4 provided a very secure environment for richard to pass into his teen years..and e4 even gave this maturing lad responsibilities, i.e. recruiting an army.
=====
And loyalty was Richard's motto. I can well see him giving a spirited
and heart-felt advocay of Clarence's case, then heading back North
while Edward did what he decided to do.
===
i don't know how spirited richard would have been towards advocating towards george. richard may have fought to not have george humiliated publically. but, george definitely had some problems of paranoia and a historic love of drink. george had definitely "lost it". richard was no longer a child, but a rational adult who knew george was a maker of his own grief.
i do think richard was not at all happy that george had received the death sentence. but i do think richard was smart enough to realise george had been extremely foolhardy if not out right drunk to have brought so much negative attention to himself.
roslyn
Katy
comments interspersed
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Richard certainly gained much from Clarence's execution and
> attainder, especially the other half of the Warwick estates. His son
> was made Earl of Salisbury a few days before, and of course the
> attainder barred Clarence's son from the succession, although since
> most attainders were reversed for future generations this made young
> Warwick a definite threat to Richard, and then to Tudor who had him
> beheaded on trumped-up charges.
> According to Hicks Richard only made up the story of his having
> mourned for George in 1483 in order to throw the blame wholly on the
> Woodvilles. There's little evidence for his supporting Clarence at
> the time of the trial.
> Of course the idea that Richard took the leading part in getting rid
> of Clarence is nonesense.
I would imagine that Richard had rather complicated feelings towards
Clarence.
======
richard and george were the youngest sons of richard of york. they were often under their mother's care and fleeing or in hiding.
this alone would have caused quite a bond between them. they never knew if they would live or die. the deaths of their father and brother edmund would have played an incredibly significant role in how the boys related.
*if* richard had looked up to geo with big brother worship. that would have been supplanted by richard being *awed* by bigger brother edward revenging his father and brother's death and moreover becoming king by conquest. it is interesting to also consider richard was about the same age as the younger prince in the tower, richard at the time of this event.
Clarence tried to prevent Richard's marriage to Anne Neville, in order
to keep the potential Neville inheritance and titles for himself
through his marriage to Anne's elder sister.
===
i think it also needs to be considered what role warwick would or could have had in further alienating the brothers. let us not forget that isabel may have also played a significant role in trying to control her sister anne's destiny.
anne and isabel are for the most part simply female names and considered without any power. their mother had been "put in her place" by edward and possibly by george's words. richard and anne "rescued" anne beauchamp and her come live with them. why didn't george and isabel? it would be interesting to investigate the dynamics anne beauchamp had with her daughters.
Clarence also was allowed (compelled?) to stay at court while
12-year-old Richard was traveling around the country recruiting men
for the King's army. I always wondered about that.
====
would george have been kept at court because at the time..george was next in line for the throne? these were still dangerous times.
again, i find it interesting... richard travelling about the country when 12, again about the same age as e5 when, e5 became king. i wonder if this experience helped richard determine what needed to be done with regard to his role as protector.
was warwick travelling with richard as a mentor? and if so, was anne neville part of the entourage?
one has to wonder how richard felt with regard to warwick. anne and richard had essentially grown up together. in their era many of their peers would have been betrothed. yet neither appears to have been. was richard ever betrothed to anyone prior to his marriage to anne? how would richard have felt with regard to warwick marrying anne to h6's son edward.
george was heir apparent to that prince edward. according to halstead, prince edward died on the battlefield...calling to george for assistance. did george betray edward? did prince edward not realise that george had changed sides? did george kill prince edward?
the reward to george for killing prince edward would be..he was heir to the throne of h6 and, if george could prove e4 was illegit..then george was also heir to the house of york for the throne. anne was simply the widow of someone who stood in george's way.
george would have significant motivation to keep richard or ANYONE from marrying anne. the beauchamp inheritance could be used to fund an army against his brother, e4.
edward and woodville couldn't afford that. no wonder edward gave richard his blessing to marry anne. george already had power. edward had to decrease it. it was handy his little brother wanted anne for whatever reasons.
====
On the other hand, Clarence and Richard spent a lot of time together,
separated from their family and country, during the impressionable
childhood years, and Richard may have felt that he was in the
protection of three-years-older Clarence.
===
i agree this may have played a significant role in richard's emotions towards his brother..but george wasn't his only brother..and e4 even topped geo on that level. e4 provided a very secure environment for richard to pass into his teen years..and e4 even gave this maturing lad responsibilities, i.e. recruiting an army.
=====
And loyalty was Richard's motto. I can well see him giving a spirited
and heart-felt advocay of Clarence's case, then heading back North
while Edward did what he decided to do.
===
i don't know how spirited richard would have been towards advocating towards george. richard may have fought to not have george humiliated publically. but, george definitely had some problems of paranoia and a historic love of drink. george had definitely "lost it". richard was no longer a child, but a rational adult who knew george was a maker of his own grief.
i do think richard was not at all happy that george had received the death sentence. but i do think richard was smart enough to realise george had been extremely foolhardy if not out right drunk to have brought so much negative attention to himself.
roslyn
Katy
Clarence
2013-06-12 09:48:59
John Ashdown-Hill's bio of Clarence has been announced on Amazon, though
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Clarence
2013-06-12 10:58:51
March, I believe.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Clarence
John Ashdown-Hill's bio of Clarence has been announced on Amazon, though
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Clarence
John Ashdown-Hill's bio of Clarence has been announced on Amazon, though
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Clarence
2013-06-12 11:53:47
Wonderful....
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:49 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
John Ashdown-Hill's bio of Clarence has been announced on Amazon, though
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:49 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
John Ashdown-Hill's bio of Clarence has been announced on Amazon, though
no date yet.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.