Richard's Patron Saint

Someone on the Ricardian group posted that Richard was devoted to St Anthony, the patron Saint of lust( *don't ask me*)!!!
Did Richard have a favorite saint? If it was St Anthony of Padua, it would make sense but I can't find any St Anthony of "lust"!!
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

My St. Anthony is the one who loves animals. I will do a search tomorrow. I cannot remember St. Tony = lust.

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:51 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Someone on the Ricardian group posted that Richard was devoted to St Anthony, the patron Saint of lust( *don't ask me*)!!!
Did Richard have a favorite saint? If it was St Anthony of Padua, it would make sense but I can't find any St Anthony of "lust"!!
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

Ishita
As lust is one of the deadly sins it is unlikely that there is a saint to this vice, perhaps St. Jude?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> Someone on the Ricardian group posted that Richard was devoted to St Anthony, the patron Saint of lust( *don't ask me*)!!!
> Did Richard have a favorite saint? If it was St Anthony of Padua, it would make sense but I can't find any St Anthony of "lust"!!
> Ishita
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>

You gotta put that one on the Ricardian page on Facebook! Lolol.
I have no clue where people get these crazy ideas:/ Whatever Richard's vices were , I am positive lechery was not one of them!

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

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:10 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> Ishita
> As lust is one of the deadly sins it is unlikely that there is a saint to this vice, perhaps St. Jude?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> > Someone on the Ricardian group posted that Richard was devoted to St Anthony, the patron Saint of lust( *don't ask me*)!!!
> > Did Richard have a favorite saint? If it was St Anthony of Padua, it would make sense but I can't find any St Anthony of "lust"!!
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Someone on the Ricardian group posted that Richard was devoted to St Anthony, the patron Saint of lust( *don't ask me*)!!!
> Did Richard have a favorite saint? If it was St Anthony of Padua, it would make sense but I can't find any St Anthony of "lust"!!
> Ishita
>

Richard had a collect for St Ninian added to his Book of Hours, and I seem to remember reading he patronised the cult of St Ninian in other ways - though I can't recall in what ways and what proof there is that he did so.

I do remember St Ninian being called his 'favourite saint' in some sources; though, again, I don't know what proof there is for such an assertion, apart from the collect of course.

Hello All, Richard had a number of saints, St Anthony was one and there is a lovely story about St Anthony in the wild attacked by wild beast when a little boar came to his rescue.
The little boar stayed faithfully with him for the rest of it's life.
In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a family at that time.
Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him with the name.
Richard had a number of other saints, I can't remember them all but St Ninian, a nothern saint, St Cuthbert also a Northern saint, St george of course, St John, the Virgin Mary, St Barbara who I believe is the patron saint of soldiers/gunners and St Katherine.
I know their are others but can't remember them.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint


> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> family at that time.
Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
with the name.

There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
the runt of the litter.

Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.

I have desired it so much - thought to be about his wish to be a chivalric knight.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint

 

From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint

> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> family at that time.
Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
with the name.

There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
the runt of the litter.

Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.

Does one of the modern ones have the surname Blair by any chance......:0) Eileen

-
>
> From: C HOLMES
>
>
> Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> 34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
>

Nice one Eileen


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Does one of the modern ones have the surname Blair by any chance......:0) Eileen
>
> -
> >
> > From: C HOLMES
> >
> >
> > Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> > 34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
> >
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> I have desired it so much - thought to be about his wish to be a chivalric knight.

Carol responds:

I thought it was the book on chivalry itself. I've never heard anything about it's being a pun on runt of the litter as Christine suggested.

Carol

You've just reminded me that Eleanor Fairburn mentions this in "White Rose, Dark Summer". She has Richard's nurse tell him the story of the runt of the litter, Tantony Pig. She does buy into the idea that Richard was small and delicate, IIRC.



--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All, Richard had a number of saints, St Anthony was one and there is a lovely story about St Anthony in the wild attacked by wild beast when a little boar came to his rescue.
> The little boar stayed faithfully with him for the rest of it's life.
> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a family at that time.
> Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him with the name.
> Richard had a number of other saints, I can't remember them all but St Ninian, a nothern saint, St Cuthbert also a Northern saint, St george of course, St John, the Virgin Mary, St Barbara who I believe is the patron saint of soldiers/gunners and St Katherine.
> I know their are others but can't remember them.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>

Yes - Ipomedon that was the book he wrote it in wasn't it? Know nothing about runts. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint

 


Hilary wrote:
>
> I have desired it so much - thought to be about his wish to be a chivalric knight.

Carol responds:

I thought it was the book on chivalry itself. I've never heard anything about it's being a pun on runt of the litter as Christine suggested.

Carol

On 'Holy Pigs or Boars' Winwick Church, near Warrington, as well as having some Fascinating Monumental Brasses, [of the Era]  has a statue of St. Oswald & a Pig /Boar on the outside of the church [Again of the Era.] Oswald was particularly followed in the North East of England. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
>
>
> 
>From: C HOLMES
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
>Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
>
>> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
>> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
>> family at that time.
>Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
>with the name.
>
>There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
>teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
>le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
>as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
>the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
>the runt of the litter.
>
>Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
>34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
>
>
>
>
>

Where does people come up with ideas like patron of lust is beyond me! Now I can write with authority that there was no such thing:)

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:

> On 'Holy Pigs or Boars' Winwick Church, near Warrington, as well as having some Fascinating Monumental Brasses, [of the Era] has a statue of St. Oswald & a Pig /Boar on the outside of the church [Again of the Era.] Oswald was particularly followed in the North East of England.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur W.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >
> >
> >From: C HOLMES
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> >Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> >> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> >> family at that time.
> >Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
> >with the name.
> >
> >There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
> >teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
> >le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
> >as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
> >the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
> >the runt of the litter.
> >
> >Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> >34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I missed the beginning of this, but people appeal to St Anthony to help them find "lost" things.  Are we talking about a typo?!

Jonathan

P.S.  And I assume he's Philippa Langley's favoured saint...




________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 18:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint


 
Where does people come up with ideas like patron of lust is beyond me! Now I can write with authority that there was no such thing:)

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arthurian lancastrian@...> wrote:

> On 'Holy Pigs or Boars' Winwick Church, near Warrington, as well as having some Fascinating Monumental Brasses, [of the Era] has a statue of St. Oswald & a Pig /Boar on the outside of the church [Again of the Era.] Oswald was particularly followed in the North East of England.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur W.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >
> >
> >From: C HOLMES
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> >Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> >> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> >> family at that time.
> >Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
> >with the name.
> >
> >There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
> >teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
> >le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
> >as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
> >the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
> >the runt of the litter.
> >
> >Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> >34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Oh Jonathan, I do believe you have solved the mystery!!!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint



I missed the beginning of this, but people appeal to St Anthony to help them find "lost" things. Are we talking about a typo?!

Jonathan

P.S. And I assume he's Philippa Langley's favoured saint...

________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 18:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint



Where does people come up with ideas like patron of lust is beyond me! Now I can write with authority that there was no such thing:)

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arthurian lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> On 'Holy Pigs or Boars' Winwick Church, near Warrington, as well as having some Fascinating Monumental Brasses, [of the Era] has a statue of St. Oswald & a Pig /Boar on the outside of the church [Again of the Era.] Oswald was particularly followed in the North East of England.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur W.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >
> >
> >From: C HOLMES
> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> >Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> >
> >> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> >> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> >> family at that time.
> >Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
> >with the name.
> >
> >There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
> >teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
> >le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
> >as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
> >the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
> >the runt of the litter.
> >
> >Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> >34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

That's really interesting about the possible link between "tant" in his early motto and "tantony". Someone will have to correct me or point me in the direction of clarification, but I did read somewhere that as a youngster, Richard might have possibly gained the "tantony pig" appellation from his governess (can't think of the proper word, sorry) who might have been Lady Croft, of Croft Castle. I do know that on her tomb-effigy at Croft, there is a boar at her feet.

Col

_____________
> > > From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
> > >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 11:51
> > >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >From: C HOLMES
> > >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
> > >
> > >> In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> > >> after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> > >> family at that time.
> > >Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
> > >with the name.
> > >
> > >There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
> > >teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
> > >le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
> > >as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
> > >the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
> > >the runt of the litter.
> > >
> > >Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> > >34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
> > >

>

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> That's really interesting about the possible link between "tant" in his early motto and "tantony". Someone will have to correct me or point me in the direction of clarification, but I did read somewhere that as a youngster, Richard might have possibly gained the "tantony pig" appellation from his governess (can't think of the proper word, sorry) who might have been Lady Croft, of Croft Castle. I do know that on her tomb-effigy at Croft, there is a boar at her feet.
>
> Col

Carol responds:

"Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.

You're right that his governess was Lady Croft (first name apparently unknown). The tomb effigy you're describing is in "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field." Unfortunately, the photo cuts off below the knees so I can't see the boar at her feet. Her husband, Sir Richard, was Treasurer of Richard's household after he was king, so the boar could represent his loyalty as well as hers. I don't know the dates of death or anything else.

Do you have a link to an online photo of the tomb effigy that shows the boar?

Carol

I don't have one yet! But I do have a photo somewhere that I took of the tomb, about 15 yrs ago: I will scan and upload it if I locate it.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > That's really interesting about the possible link between "tant" in his early motto and "tantony". Someone will have to correct me or point me in the direction of clarification, but I did read somewhere that as a youngster, Richard might have possibly gained the "tantony pig" appellation from his governess (can't think of the proper word, sorry) who might have been Lady Croft, of Croft Castle. I do know that on her tomb-effigy at Croft, there is a boar at her feet.
> >
> > Col
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.
>
> You're right that his governess was Lady Croft (first name apparently unknown). The tomb effigy you're describing is in "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field." Unfortunately, the photo cuts off below the knees so I can't see the boar at her feet. Her husband, Sir Richard, was Treasurer of Richard's household after he was king, so the boar could represent his loyalty as well as hers. I don't know the dates of death or anything else.
>
> Do you have a link to an online photo of the tomb effigy that shows the boar?
>
> Carol
>

Tant le desiree means 'so much the desired thing/person', or 'she/it [is] so much desired': the desired thing or person being feminine. I feel it would be wrong to try to read too much into Richard's mottos. Like most medieval mottos, this one is deliberately obtuse. It could be a reference to his ladylove, to almost any abstract noun you can think of including all the virtues, or even (as anti-Richard historians wouild have it), the crown.
What do I think about it being the crown? Not much, this motto being used so early in his life and then apparently dropped.
Marie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
>
>
> > In medieval times pig farmers named their littlest pig the Tantony pig
> > after St Anthony, this became a nick name for the littlest child in a
> > family at that time.
> Richard was the youngest surviving child, I wonder if his family teased him
> with the name.
>
> There's a piece of paper in Richard's hand, I think from when he was a
> teenager, on which he's written what seems to be an alternative motto "Tant
> le desiré". Nobody is sure what it means although I've seen it interpeted
> as "So great the desire" - but whatever it means it seems to be a play on
> the Tantony pig, meaning he made a joke about his own perceived status as
> the runt of the litter.
>
> Gah - I just looked on a list of patron saints and there are no fewer than
> 34 different St Anthony's, although about half of them look to be modern.
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > That's really interesting about the possible link between "tant" in his early motto and "tantony". Someone will have to correct me or point me in the direction of clarification, but I did read somewhere that as a youngster, Richard might have possibly gained the "tantony pig" appellation from his governess (can't think of the proper word, sorry) who might have been Lady Croft, of Croft Castle. I do know that on her tomb-effigy at Croft, there is a boar at her feet.
> >
> > Col
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.
>
> You're right that his governess was Lady Croft (first name apparently unknown). The tomb effigy you're describing is in "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field." Unfortunately, the photo cuts off below the knees so I can't see the boar at her feet. Her husband, Sir Richard, was Treasurer of Richard's household after he was king, so the boar could represent his loyalty as well as hers. I don't know the dates of death or anything else.
>
> Do you have a link to an online photo of the tomb effigy that shows the boar?
>
> Carol
>

I don't actually believe there's any evidence that Lady Croft was Richard's governess. This probably started with the fact that Edward IV, aged 12, complained in a letter to his father about "the odious rule and demeaning" of Richard Croft and his brother, as a result of which Richard Croft was wrongly identified as Edward's tutor - he was actually just a lad of his own age in training at Ludlow Castle. The Crofts lived in Herefordshiere, close to Ludlow, so Lady Croft would be a very unlikely governess for richard at Fotheringhay on the other side of the country.
Joan Malpas, later Peysmarsh, has also been suggested because in 1483 Richard granted her an annuity of 20 marks for her good service to the King in his youth and to his mother the Duchess of York. In her will, Cecily left her her inn in Grantham, just 30 miles from Fotheringhay.
Marie

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint


> "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a
> particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.

Yup, it does! I just came across it by chance while ferretting about in the
catalogue from the RIII exhibition, hoping that it was there that I saw the
description of von Poppelau's enormous lance (it wasn't).

This is kind-of hard to describe coherently, but here goes.

Items 45 and 46 in the illustrations at the back of the catalogue are two
greyscale photographs of drawings of heraldic badges, both from a document
or file described as "BM Add. MS 40742". In both cases the badge is
surrounded by white in a way which looks as though the badge has been cut
round and lifted from the original page, but I can't see any sign of any cut
edges so it may be that somebody has just whited out the surrounding blank
spaces on the photograph.

The one on the left is a falcon-in-fetterlock above which is written "the
duk of york" (it's not that great a drawing of a falcon, but it doesn't
actually look like a duck!).

The one on the right is a drawing of a boar statant with a crown round its
neck. Underneath this, and separated from it by a strip of plain white (so
that it's not clear whether its position relative to the drawing has been
preserved or not) is written "tant le desire". Although this has not been
identified in the book as being Richard's own writing it's quite clearly in
the same hand as the signed "tant le desiree" on Ipomedon, and equally
clearly it's not just the same bit of writing in a new setting, because here
he's spelled it with only one 'e' on the end and the loop on the 'd' is
slightly different.

For those of you who are interested in calligraphy, it's also possible to
see that despite the rather wide spacing he uses, the loop of the 'l' is
actually a continuation of the cross-bar on the 't' - you can see a very
faint line joining them. This I think tends to confirm that the wide
spacing is due to stiffness or to a conscious style choice, rather than to
the sinister psychological interpretation put on it by that graphologist,
because it shows that far from being isolated and hesitant the two words
form one continuous if rather sprawling flow.

Above the boar and conjoined with it, so it's clearly from the same piece of
paper/parchment as the boar, is a bit of very faint writing which I can't
read (except for the words "my" and "of") but which *may* be in the same
hand: at least the loops on the 'l's look the same. If this piece of
writing is indeed in Richard's hand and the motto underneath is in its
original position relative to the boar, then that strongly suggests that the
boar in between them (which is fairly well-drawn but has rather amateurish
trotters) is Richard's own drawing.

Again, if the motto underneath is in its original position relative to the
boar, that tends to support the idea that "tant" is a play on the Tantony
Pig, or runt of the litter (although it doesn't of course prove it). The
fact that this motto (it evidently *is* a motto, or perhaps a favourite
quotation from something now lost) appears separately from Ipomedon makes it
less likely to mean "I have desired this chivalry in this here book so much"
and more likely that it means, generally, something like "My desire is so
intense".

Incidentally, if you look very very closely at the page from Ipomedon,
there's a faint mark which suggests that he started to draw that twiddly
flower higher up, next to "desiree", then decided that he didn't have enough
space, carefully scraped it off and redrew it further down.

On the same page of the exhi9bition catalogue is what's described as a
"plaque" found at Middleham and bearing the conjoined initials R&A -
although of course that could as easily be Warwick and his wife as Richard
and Warwick's daughter. No scale is given but it looks to me like it's
probably a horse-brass of some kind, since it has holes punched in for
attaching it to something.

Also on the same page are a perfectly ordinary boar-badge found at
Middleham, and a boar hat-badge found in the Thames and also believed to be
a contemporary version of Richard's badge. If it is it suggests that he was
held in warm and somewhat irreverant affection, for the ferocious boar has
been re-cast as a cute piggy with a ring in his nose, a curly tail and big
googly eyes, sitting on his rump.

I can scan the relevant page if people want to see it.

Carol earlier:
> > "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a
> > particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.

"Claire M Jordan" responded:
> Yup, it does! I just came across it by chance while ferretting about in the catalogue from the RIII exhibition, hoping that it was there that I saw the description of von Poppelau's enormous lance (it wasn't). [snip}

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for enlightening me! Which RIII exhibition? Do you mean the one with the unfortunate name, "To Prove a Villain," described on the American branch's website? Ir not, can you provide a URL so we can see it for ourselves?

Claire:
> The one on the left is a falcon-in-fetterlock above which is written "the duk of york" (it's not that great a drawing of a falcon, but it doesn't actually look like a duck!).

Carol responds:
LOL! The falcon in fetterlock was a badge used by Richard III's father, the Duke of York.

Claire:
> [snip] Above the boar and conjoined with it, so it's clearly from the same piece of paper/parchment as the boar, is a bit of very faint writing which I can't read (except for the words "my" and "of") but which *may* be in the same hand: at least the loops on the 'l's look the same. If this piece of writing is indeed in Richard's hand and the motto underneath is in its original position relative to the boar, then that strongly suggests that the boar in between them (which is fairly well-drawn but has rather amateurish trotters) is Richard's own drawing.
>
> Again, if the motto underneath is in its original position relative to the boar, that tends to support the idea that "tant" is a play on the Tantony Pig, or runt of the litter (although it doesn't of course prove it). The fact that this motto (it evidently *is* a motto, or perhaps a favourite quotation from something now lost) appears separately from Ipomedon makes it less likely to mean "I have desired this chivalry in this here book so much" and more likely that it means, generally, something like "My desire is so intense".
>
> Incidentally, if you look very very closely at the page from Ipomedon, there's a faint mark which suggests that he started to draw that twiddly flower higher up, next to "desiree", then decided that he didn't have enough space, carefully scraped it off and redrew it further down.

Carol responds:

Oh, my goodness. Young Richard making puns and in love! Well, that's how it sounds from your description. Fascinating!

Claire:
> On the same page of the exhi9bition catalogue is what's described as a "plaque" found at Middleham and bearing the conjoined initials R&A - although of course that could as easily be Warwick and his wife as Richard and Warwick's daughter. No scale is given but it looks to me like it's probably a horse-brass of some kind, since it has holes punched in for attaching it to something.

Carol responds:

I knew there was an entwined R and A somewhere. I was thinking, obviously incorrectly, that it was part of the Middleham Jewel.

Claire:
> Also on the same page are a perfectly ordinary boar-badge found at Middleham, and a boar hat-badge found in the Thames and also believed to be a contemporary version of Richard's badge. If it is it suggests that he was held in warm and somewhat irreverant affection, for the ferocious boar has been re-cast as a cute piggy with a ring in his nose, a curly tail and big googly eyes, sitting on his rump.
>
> I can scan the relevant page if people want to see it.

Carol responds:

Oui, tant le desiree! Er, I mean, yes, please. I'd love to see it. It sounds as if there was a lot more to the young Richard than the "loyal brother." He sounds charming and funny and very much the baby of the family.

Please do scan the page and upload it to the files with a notice to the group that you've done so. (Just check the box and Yahoo will do it for you.) If you could also provide a link, I would greatly appreciate it.

Carol

>
> Oui, tant le desiree! Er, I mean, yes, please. I'd love to see it. It
> sounds as if there was a lot more to the young Richard than the "loyal
> brother." He sounds charming and funny and very much the baby of the family.
>
> Please do scan the page and upload it to the files with a notice to the
> group that you've done so. (Just check the box and Yahoo will do it for
> you.) If you could also provide a link, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> Carol
>

Et moi aussi! I would love to see this, and am interested in the very nice
details you gave.

Maria
ejbronte@...


>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint


> Thanks very much for enlightening me! Which RIII exhibition?

I'm in the midst of constructing corn fritters so I'll respond to the rest
later, but in brief, this was the catalogue to an exhibition held at the
National Portrait Gallery in London in the late '70s. I am eternally
grateful that I missed it because if I'd gone to it I almost certainly
wouldn't have then bought the catalogue, which is stuffed with good stuff
much of which wasn't in the exhibition itself. If you ever see a copy on
sale beg, borrow or steal to get hold of it.

I don't believe there's any copy on line, unfortunately, and it's rather
long to scan - over 100 pages of A4+.

Carol earlier:

Which RIII exhibition?

Claire M Jordan responded:

> [snip] this was the catalogue to an exhibition held at the National Portrait Gallery in London in the late '70s. I am eternally> grateful that I missed it because if I'd gone to it I almost certainly wouldn't have then bought the catalogue, which is stuffed with good stuff much of which wasn't in the exhibition itself. If you ever see a copy on sale beg, borrow or steal to get hold of it.
>
> I don't believe there's any copy on line, unfortunately, and it's rather long to scan - over 100 pages of A4+.

Carol responds:

Hi, Claire. I didn't mean scan the whole catalogue, only the images you described. Too bad there's no URL! It's clearly not the same exhibition described on the American branch site, which took place
at the Royal National Theatre, London March 27-April 27, 1991.

In case I haven't already posted it, the URL for that one is http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/index.html

Looking forward very much to the scan when you finish your corn fritters!

Carol

To all:

Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.

1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.

2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.

Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.

If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon

Regards,

Neil


>

Neil Trump wrote:
>
>
> To all:
>
> Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.
>
> 1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.
>
> 2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.
>
> Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.
>
> If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon

Carol responds:

I've already responded to Neil offlist to express an interest (given that it was my idea to begin with).

Here are the questions I originally posted (in a different order since they weren't chronological):

Were Anne and Richard legally married?

What is Titulus Regius?

What is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate?

Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews?

Did Richard want to marry his niece?

I would add the obvious question, "Did Richard have a hunchback and a withered arm?" and a final question, "Where can I find out more information on Richard III?"

I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine. Also, I haven't sorted mine into basic or advanced, but Titulus Regius would almost certainly qualify as advanced as would the legality of the marriage (which I hope we can get Marie to answer in a condensed version of her brilliant article).

I would be happy to answer one or two of my own questions, whichever ones Neil chooses to assign to me.

Carol

Yes, please - to the scanning.

A J

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
>
> > "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a
> > particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.
>
> Yup, it does! I just came across it by chance while ferretting about in
> the
> catalogue from the RIII exhibition, hoping that it was there that I saw
> the
> description of von Poppelau's enormous lance (it wasn't).
>
> This is kind-of hard to describe coherently, but here goes.
>
> Items 45 and 46 in the illustrations at the back of the catalogue are two
> greyscale photographs of drawings of heraldic badges, both from a document
> or file described as "BM Add. MS 40742". In both cases the badge is
> surrounded by white in a way which looks as though the badge has been cut
> round and lifted from the original page, but I can't see any sign of any
> cut
> edges so it may be that somebody has just whited out the surrounding blank
> spaces on the photograph.
>
> The one on the left is a falcon-in-fetterlock above which is written "the
> duk of york" (it's not that great a drawing of a falcon, but it doesn't
> actually look like a duck!).
>
> The one on the right is a drawing of a boar statant with a crown round its
> neck. Underneath this, and separated from it by a strip of plain white (so
> that it's not clear whether its position relative to the drawing has been
> preserved or not) is written "tant le desire". Although this has not been
> identified in the book as being Richard's own writing it's quite clearly
> in
> the same hand as the signed "tant le desiree" on Ipomedon, and equally
> clearly it's not just the same bit of writing in a new setting, because
> here
> he's spelled it with only one 'e' on the end and the loop on the 'd' is
> slightly different.
>
> For those of you who are interested in calligraphy, it's also possible to
> see that despite the rather wide spacing he uses, the loop of the 'l' is
> actually a continuation of the cross-bar on the 't' - you can see a very
> faint line joining them. This I think tends to confirm that the wide
> spacing is due to stiffness or to a conscious style choice, rather than to
> the sinister psychological interpretation put on it by that graphologist,
> because it shows that far from being isolated and hesitant the two words
> form one continuous if rather sprawling flow.
>
> Above the boar and conjoined with it, so it's clearly from the same piece
> of
> paper/parchment as the boar, is a bit of very faint writing which I can't
> read (except for the words "my" and "of") but which *may* be in the same
> hand: at least the loops on the 'l's look the same. If this piece of
> writing is indeed in Richard's hand and the motto underneath is in its
> original position relative to the boar, then that strongly suggests that
> the
> boar in between them (which is fairly well-drawn but has rather amateurish
> trotters) is Richard's own drawing.
>
> Again, if the motto underneath is in its original position relative to the
> boar, that tends to support the idea that "tant" is a play on the Tantony
> Pig, or runt of the litter (although it doesn't of course prove it). The
> fact that this motto (it evidently *is* a motto, or perhaps a favourite
> quotation from something now lost) appears separately from Ipomedon makes
> it
> less likely to mean "I have desired this chivalry in this here book so
> much"
> and more likely that it means, generally, something like "My desire is so
> intense".
>
> Incidentally, if you look very very closely at the page from Ipomedon,
> there's a faint mark which suggests that he started to draw that twiddly
> flower higher up, next to "desiree", then decided that he didn't have
> enough
> space, carefully scraped it off and redrew it further down.
>
> On the same page of the exhi9bition catalogue is what's described as a
> "plaque" found at Middleham and bearing the conjoined initials R&A -
> although of course that could as easily be Warwick and his wife as Richard
> and Warwick's daughter. No scale is given but it looks to me like it's
> probably a horse-brass of some kind, since it has holes punched in for
> attaching it to something.
>
> Also on the same page are a perfectly ordinary boar-badge found at
> Middleham, and a boar hat-badge found in the Thames and also believed to
> be
> a contemporary version of Richard's badge. If it is it suggests that he
> was
> held in warm and somewhat irreverant affection, for the ferocious boar has
> been re-cast as a cute piggy with a ring in his nose, a curly tail and big
> googly eyes, sitting on his rump.
>
> I can scan the relevant page if people want to see it.
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint



> Hi, Claire. I didn't mean scan the whole catalogue, only the images you
> described. Too bad there's no URL! It's clearly not the same exhibition
> described on the American branch site, which took place
at the Royal National Theatre, London March 27-April 27, 1991.

No, this one was held to celebrate the cleaning of the NPG portrait in I
think 1977. The catalogue text was written by Pamela Tudor-Craig, who has a
very lively and moving style. And - yes, I knew there was something
mentioned from his boyhood as a page, but it wasn't, as I vaguely thought, a
varved set of initials. This, sadly, does not appear in the photographs at
the back, but the text refers to "a book perhaps of his childhood in the
Warwick household [..] the Longleat romances (no 154), a spare sheet filled
with the duties of a page." I'd love to see that! It seems to be in the
same group as the Ipomedon.

> Carol responds:
LOL! The falcon in fetterlock was a badge used by Richard III's father, the
Duke of York.

I know I know, I was joking! One of the first poems I wrote about Richard
used the falcon-in-fetterlock as an ominous representation of the things
that hobbled his kingship.

> Oh, my goodness. Young Richard making puns and in love! Well, that's how
> it sounds from your description. Fascinating!

Or generally passionate, perhaps - either way, a very lively, appealing boy.
The back end of the boar drawing seems to peter out - I don't know whether
the page got damaged or whether, unlike whoever drew manticore!Hastings, he
got enbarrassed when he got to the point of drawing the genitals, and gave
up.

> I knew there was an entwined R and A somewhere. I was thinking, obviously
> incorrectly, that it was part of the Middleham Jewel.

Yes, I couldn't remember where I saw it either, not having looked at the
catalogue for about ten years. The initials are joined by a love-knot, too.

> Oui, tant le desiree! Er, I mean, yes, please. I'd love to see it. It
> sounds as if there was a lot more to the young Richard than the "loyal
> brother." He sounds charming and funny and very much the baby of the
> family.

Personally I've always especially liked the cute piglet badge - if it is
meant for Richard's boar it shows both that he was held in affection and
that he wasn't expected to go up to high doh if he saw it. It's not the
badge of the follower of a tyrant - you can't imagine some Russian soldier
making a joke badge of Stalin and living to tell the tale, for example.

> Please do scan the page and upload it to the files with a notice to the
> group that you've done so.

I will do it now, just as soon as I've made a cup of tea. It'll probably
take a while because the book is so big I'll have to scan the page in two or
three sections and then join them back together.

Somewhere I actually acquired a copy of this; mine is called *Richard III*,
the 2nd edition of 1977, & Pamela Tudor-Craig is credited as the author.
Perhaps other copies are still available.

A J

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint
>
> > "Tant le desiree" wasn't really a motto, just an inscription in a
> > particular book (Ipomedon), which to my knowledge does not appear again.
>
> Yup, it does! I just came across it by chance while ferretting about in
> the
> catalogue from the RIII exhibition, hoping that it was there that I saw
> the
> description of von Poppelau's enormous lance (it wasn't).
>
> This is kind-of hard to describe coherently, but here goes.
>
> Items 45 and 46 in the illustrations at the back of the catalogue are two
> greyscale photographs of drawings of heraldic badges, both from a document
> or file described as "BM Add. MS 40742". In both cases the badge is
> surrounded by white in a way which looks as though the badge has been cut
> round and lifted from the original page, but I can't see any sign of any
> cut
> edges so it may be that somebody has just whited out the surrounding blank
> spaces on the photograph.
>
> The one on the left is a falcon-in-fetterlock above which is written "the
> duk of york" (it's not that great a drawing of a falcon, but it doesn't
> actually look like a duck!).
>
> The one on the right is a drawing of a boar statant with a crown round its
> neck. Underneath this, and separated from it by a strip of plain white (so
> that it's not clear whether its position relative to the drawing has been
> preserved or not) is written "tant le desire". Although this has not been
> identified in the book as being Richard's own writing it's quite clearly
> in
> the same hand as the signed "tant le desiree" on Ipomedon, and equally
> clearly it's not just the same bit of writing in a new setting, because
> here
> he's spelled it with only one 'e' on the end and the loop on the 'd' is
> slightly different.
>
> For those of you who are interested in calligraphy, it's also possible to
> see that despite the rather wide spacing he uses, the loop of the 'l' is
> actually a continuation of the cross-bar on the 't' - you can see a very
> faint line joining them. This I think tends to confirm that the wide
> spacing is due to stiffness or to a conscious style choice, rather than to
> the sinister psychological interpretation put on it by that graphologist,
> because it shows that far from being isolated and hesitant the two words
> form one continuous if rather sprawling flow.
>
> Above the boar and conjoined with it, so it's clearly from the same piece
> of
> paper/parchment as the boar, is a bit of very faint writing which I can't
> read (except for the words "my" and "of") but which *may* be in the same
> hand: at least the loops on the 'l's look the same. If this piece of
> writing is indeed in Richard's hand and the motto underneath is in its
> original position relative to the boar, then that strongly suggests that
> the
> boar in between them (which is fairly well-drawn but has rather amateurish
> trotters) is Richard's own drawing.
>
> Again, if the motto underneath is in its original position relative to the
> boar, that tends to support the idea that "tant" is a play on the Tantony
> Pig, or runt of the litter (although it doesn't of course prove it). The
> fact that this motto (it evidently *is* a motto, or perhaps a favourite
> quotation from something now lost) appears separately from Ipomedon makes
> it
> less likely to mean "I have desired this chivalry in this here book so
> much"
> and more likely that it means, generally, something like "My desire is so
> intense".
>
> Incidentally, if you look very very closely at the page from Ipomedon,
> there's a faint mark which suggests that he started to draw that twiddly
> flower higher up, next to "desiree", then decided that he didn't have
> enough
> space, carefully scraped it off and redrew it further down.
>
> On the same page of the exhi9bition catalogue is what's described as a
> "plaque" found at Middleham and bearing the conjoined initials R&A -
> although of course that could as easily be Warwick and his wife as Richard
> and Warwick's daughter. No scale is given but it looks to me like it's
> probably a horse-brass of some kind, since it has holes punched in for
> attaching it to something.
>
> Also on the same page are a perfectly ordinary boar-badge found at
> Middleham, and a boar hat-badge found in the Thames and also believed to
> be
> a contemporary version of Richard's badge. If it is it suggests that he
> was
> held in warm and somewhat irreverant affection, for the ferocious boar has
> been re-cast as a cute piggy with a ring in his nose, a curly tail and big
> googly eyes, sitting on his rump.
>
> I can scan the relevant page if people want to see it.
>
>
>

Another idea might be to distinguish subjects/threads of interest. I'm thinking that maybe there could be sections devoted to factual
information i.e. discussions around Richard's early life/reign/ relationships/reputation/ historical sources and sections devoted to historical fiction/non-fiction (maybe new publications) and a section for "flights of fancy" i.e speculative theories. Then members could choose to follow a particular thread and if they had no interest in that line/thread, then they could abstain. This would hopefully reduce the amount of information members are currently having to wade through and create a more organised and efficient forum.
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Neil Trump wrote:
> >
> >
> > To all:
> >
> > Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.
> >
> > 1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.
> >
> > 2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.
> >
> > Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.
> >
> > If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've already responded to Neil offlist to express an interest (given that it was my idea to begin with).
>
> Here are the questions I originally posted (in a different order since they weren't chronological):
>
> Were Anne and Richard legally married?
>
> What is Titulus Regius?
>
> What is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate?
>
> Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews?
>
> Did Richard want to marry his niece?
>
> I would add the obvious question, "Did Richard have a hunchback and a withered arm?" and a final question, "Where can I find out more information on Richard III?"
>
> I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine. Also, I haven't sorted mine into basic or advanced, but Titulus Regius would almost certainly qualify as advanced as would the legality of the marriage (which I hope we can get Marie to answer in a condensed version of her brilliant article).
>
> I would be happy to answer one or two of my own questions, whichever ones Neil chooses to assign to me.
>
> Carol
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area


> I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> mine.

"What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
love-match from the outset.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Personally I've always especially liked the cute piglet badge - if it is meant for Richard's boar it shows both that he was held in affection and that he wasn't expected to go up to high doh if he saw it. It's not the badge of the follower of a tyrant - you can't imagine some Russian soldier making a joke badge of Stalin and living to tell the tale, for example.

Carol responds:

I've snipped the rest of your lively and interesting post because I can't comment on the artwork, mottoes, etc., until I've seen them. I hope that the exhibition's commentary is included since I have no way of figuring out for myself what means what. But my poor old American brain can't figure out what you mean by the quoted paragraph. What does "go yp to the high doh" mean? And if it's Richard's badge )at least a joke version of it), how could it be the badge of the follower of a tyrant (unless the tyrant is Edward IV, which is clearly not what you mean)? Are you saying that the drawing may be a joke made by one of his friends or followers when he was young? If so, he was hardly a tyrant then even if (as Ross and others would have us believe) he became one later.

And on a side note, while you're translating British to American for me, can you tell me what "ta" (used by another poster) means? (I picture an old Scotsman saying, "Ta, lass, ye needn't fear the wee beastie," so I guess it seems to me a bit like "tut, tut." Probably dead wrong . . . .)

Claire:
> I will do it now, just as soon as I've made a cup of tea. It'll probably take a while because the book is so big I'll have to scan the page in two or three sections and then join them back together.

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. I'll keep an eye out for that catalogue. It sounds like a rare treasure.

Carol

Carol earlier:

> > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine.
>
> "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we have enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a love-match from the outset.

Carol responds:

Maybe "Was the marriage between Richard and Anne a love match" since the relationship between Richard and Anne was husband and wife (or first cousins once removed).

Carol, pretending not to notice "Ann and his wife" [smile]

Claire,

Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?

Regards,

Neil



On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
> > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > mine.
>
> "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> love-match from the outset.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Proposed FAQ area



> Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the
> sources?

Quoted in recent messages in the last couple of days - the fact that when
she was ill he spent a fortune on partially endowing a college (or was it a
hospital?) in her name, and the description of his still visiting the queen
every night and having to be forbidden her bed because of her illness. I
don't know what the sources are but presumably the people who made the posts
do.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Patron Saint


> But my poor old American brain can't figure out what you mean by the
> quoted paragraph. What does "go yp to the high doh" mean?

"Go up to high doh" - sorry, I thought that was an Americanism. Doh as in
doh re mi fah so la ti doh - to go up to high doh is to utter a falsetto
screech of rage, and by extension to become generally enraged or
over-excited.

> And if it's Richard's badge )at least a joke version of it), how could it
> be the badge of the follower of a tyrant (unless the tyrant is Edward IV,
> which is clearly not what you mean)?

I mean that if it is indeed a variant of Richard's badge then it's good
evidence that he wasn't a tyrant and wasn't excessively touchy about his own
image, because if he had been, no one would have dared to sell or wear a
joke version of his badge - especially one which suggested that he was a
cute little piggy.

> And on a side note, while you're translating British to American for me,
> can you tell me what "ta" (used by another poster) means? (I picture an
> old Scotsman saying, "Ta, lass, ye needn't fear the wee beastie," so I
> guess it seems to me a bit like "tut, tut." Probably dead wrong . . . .)

Ah, no, "ta" is just a short slangy form of "thank you". "Cha", on the
other hand, is tea - the drink, not the meal.

> Thanks very much. I'll keep an eye out for that catalogue. It sounds like
> a rare treasure.

It's packed with Ricardian goodness, it really is. I've uploaded the file,
so you can now see the cute piggy for yourself.

I'd like to propose a question about the possibility that Alfred the Great and Richard III have something in common:

Q: What did Richard III and Alfred the Great have in common?

A: According to Professor Jennifer Paxton's lectures on medieval history, (http://www.thegreatcourses.com) Alfred the Great set aside *his* two nephews. There was some disagreement with Alfred's action, but none of the vilification that Richard III has received.

If we can briefly point out that Richard III's reasons for taking the throne were as valid as Alfred the Great's, I think it would be very helpful. It seems to me that Alfred and Richard were the most qualified adult heirs at a time when a minority kingship would have been extra troublesome.

I haven't tried to confirm Paxton's interpretation from other sources, but I will, if this question is accepted for the FAQ.

Marion


--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Another idea might be to distinguish subjects/threads of interest. I'm thinking that maybe there could be sections devoted to factual
> information i.e. discussions around Richard's early life/reign/ relationships/reputation/ historical sources and sections devoted to historical fiction/non-fiction (maybe new publications) and a section for "flights of fancy" i.e speculative theories. Then members could choose to follow a particular thread and if they had no interest in that line/thread, then they could abstain. This would hopefully reduce the amount of information members are currently having to wade through and create a more organised and efficient forum.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Neil Trump wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > To all:
> > >
> > > Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.
> > >
> > > 1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.
> > >
> > > 2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.
> > >
> > > Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.
> > >
> > > If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I've already responded to Neil offlist to express an interest (given that it was my idea to begin with).
> >
> > Here are the questions I originally posted (in a different order since they weren't chronological):
> >
> > Were Anne and Richard legally married?
> >
> > What is Titulus Regius?
> >
> > What is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate?
> >
> > Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews?
> >
> > Did Richard want to marry his niece?
> >
> > I would add the obvious question, "Did Richard have a hunchback and a withered arm?" and a final question, "Where can I find out more information on Richard III?"
> >
> > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine. Also, I haven't sorted mine into basic or advanced, but Titulus Regius would almost certainly qualify as advanced as would the legality of the marriage (which I hope we can get Marie to answer in a condensed version of her brilliant article).
> >
> > I would be happy to answer one or two of my own questions, whichever ones Neil chooses to assign to me.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

This is just wonderful news. I wish I had enough knowledge to help, but certainly look forward to the results. This is simply a gift to all of us. Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Neil Trump wrote:
>
>
> To all:
>
> Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.
>
> 1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.
>
> 2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.
>
> Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.
>
> If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon

Carol responds:

I've already responded to Neil offlist to express an interest (given that it was my idea to begin with).

Here are the questions I originally posted (in a different order since they weren't chronological):

Were Anne and Richard legally married?

What is Titulus Regius?

What is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate?

Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews?

Did Richard want to marry his niece?

I would add the obvious question, "Did Richard have a hunchback and a withered arm?" and a final question, "Where can I find out more information on Richard III?"

I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine. Also, I haven't sorted mine into basic or advanced, but Titulus Regius would almost certainly qualify as advanced as would the legality of the marriage (which I hope we can get Marie to answer in a condensed version of her brilliant article).

I would be happy to answer one or two of my own questions, whichever ones Neil chooses to assign to me.

Carol

Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...

Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?



--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> Claire,
>
> Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> >
> > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > mine.
> >
> > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > love-match from the outset.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: phaecilia
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area


> Q: What did Richard III and Alfred the Great have in common?

I'm not sure if that's a Frequently Asked Question! How about "Why did
Parliament ask Richard to take the throne?" and then work the bit about
Alfred in?

Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
>
> Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
>
>
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> >
> > Claire,
> >
> > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > >
> > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > mine.
> > >
> > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > love-match from the outset.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> >
> > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Claire,
> > >
> > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > >
> > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > mine.
> > > >
> > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > >
> > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Claire,
> > > >
> > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen


--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > >
> > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Claire,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Neil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes, let's let the DTTs bite their nails over this. They are also bragging that once their hero got the crown he immediately got a police force to surround him. They actually think this is some sort of compliment to the man! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Claire,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neil
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen


--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > >
> > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Claire,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Neil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Oh God...they are such donuts....Who could possibly think that a man who invented Beefeaters solely to guard him from any harm....as if!...could be described as a hero...Its kind of sad really....Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, let's let the DTTs bite their nails over this. They are also bragging that once their hero got the crown he immediately got a police force to surround him. They actually think this is some sort of compliment to the man! Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Claire,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Maire....Beefeaters....as invented by the Weasle...Be Afraid...Very Afraid...

http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/beefeaters.htm


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh God...they are such donuts....Who could possibly think that a man who invented Beefeaters solely to guard him from any harm....as if!...could be described as a hero...Its kind of sad really....Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, let's let the DTTs bite their nails over this. They are also bragging that once their hero got the crown he immediately got a police force to surround him. They actually think this is some sort of compliment to the man! Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Claire,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Oh, was it the Beefeaters? Well, he had style, I'll admit that! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh God...they are such donuts....Who could possibly think that a man who invented Beefeaters solely to guard him from any harm....as if!...could be described as a hero...Its kind of sad really....Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, let's let the DTTs bite their nails over this. They are also bragging that once their hero got the crown he immediately got a police force to surround him. They actually think this is some sort of compliment to the man! Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Claire,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

OFF TOPIC...
Maire...many years ago I went out with a boy whose dad was a Beefeater...I tried to pursuade him to take me home but alas he was too embarrassed...of his dad being a Beefeater not of me...of course! Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Maire....Beefeaters....as invented by the Weasle...Be Afraid...Very Afraid...
>
> http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/beefeaters.htm
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh God...they are such donuts....Who could possibly think that a man who invented Beefeaters solely to guard him from any harm....as if!...could be described as a hero...Its kind of sad really....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, let's let the DTTs bite their nails over this. They are also bragging that once their hero got the crown he immediately got a police force to surround him. They actually think this is some sort of compliment to the man! Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By golly Maire!...you've struck a chord in the very darkest recesses of my memory...because I vaguely can recall reading somewhere something about this...Weasle or someone knocking poor Arthur off....For God's sake don't ask me for sources...! It was many moons ago. I suppose we could take a look into it?...on the other hand why not let them, the DTTs, worry about it...Yes funny about rumours...and Tudor rumours...They can come back and bite you on the bum...:0) Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Claire,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > > > > > > mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > > > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > > > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area


> Oh, was it the Beefeaters? Well, he had style, I'll admit that! Maire.

And he did pay for a tombstone for Richard - and whilst it wasn't as
expensive as you'd normally expect a king's tomb to be, this should not be
construed as an insult, because he left instructions that his own funeral
should be carried out "with all royal and proper magnificence but no
outrageous expense", or words to that effect. He was tight, but he was
consistently tight - he wasn't one of those dictators who take from the poor
to spend it on themselves.

An 18th century transcript of wardrobe accounts records the payment of £10.1s to James Keyley for King Richards tombe...

HT's tomb...for the building of the chapel an estimated £14,856.
The cost of the tomb itself £1,257.6s 8d...
Funeral expenses another unprecedented £7,000 including £1000 for black cloth and 3,606 lbs of candlewax....

Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>
> > Oh, was it the Beefeaters? Well, he had style, I'll admit that! Maire.
>
> And he did pay for a tombstone for Richard - and whilst it wasn't as
> expensive as you'd normally expect a king's tomb to be, this should not be
> construed as an insult, because he left instructions that his own funeral
> should be carried out "with all royal and proper magnificence but no
> outrageous expense", or words to that effect. He was tight, but he was
> consistently tight - he wasn't one of those dictators who take from the poor
> to spend it on themselves.
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area


> An 18th century transcript of wardrobe accounts records the payment of
> £10.1s to James Keyley for King Richards tombe...

That was just to pay for a stone, though, not for a procession or vestments
or anything like that, and it's equivalent to well over £6,000 nowadays
(about $10,000). Whilst a small amount for a king's funeral it's a pretty
decent amount to spend on a slab of carved stone.

> Funeral expenses another unprecedented £7,000 including £1000 for black
> cloth and 3,606 lbs of candlewax....

Fat Harry obviously didn't do as he was told, regarding outrageous
expenses - but that wasn't his father's fault!

It seems to me that Richard and Henry were alike in that each of them saw
the kingship as a chance to test a theory about how the country should be
governed, rather than as a means to self-agrandisement. But Richard's
theory was about social justice, and Henry's was about financial management.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Quoted in recent messages in the last couple of days - the fact that when she was ill he spent a fortune on partially endowing a college (or was it a hospital?) in her name, and the description of his still visiting the queen every night and having to be forbidden her bed because of her illness. I don't know what the sources are but presumably the people who made the posts do.

Carol responds:

There's also his words to the mayor and aldermen when he denied the rumor that he poisoned his wife to marry his niece, recorded by the Mercers' company:

"[I]n the Great Hall there in the presence of many of his lords and of much other people, [Richard] showed his grief and displeasure aforesaid and said it never came in his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor glad of the death of his queen, but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be." (From the joint acts of court of the London Mercers' Company and Merchant Adventurers, compiled 1525).

The last part of the quotation is, I think, as strong a piece of evidence as you'll find that he loved (and mourned) his wife.

And as I mentioned in another post, he swore publicly in 1484 to require any husbands that he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love and entreat them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure." These are his actual words as recorded in the signed document and they clearly indicate the way that he thinks a man should treat his wife.

Does that help at all, Claire? Or Neil?

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area


> but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be."

Yes. He's not just saying "I'm unhappy about her death" but "I'm as unhappy
about her death as it's possible to be", poor boy, which suggests this is a
sincere statement and not just propaganda.

> And as I mentioned in another post, he swore publicly in 1484 to require
> any husbands that he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love and
> entreat them,

I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd guess it
means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them around" but
"buy them treats" is also a possibility!

> as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."

It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll
have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.

> These are his actual words as recorded in the signed document and they
> clearly indicate the way that he thinks a man should treat his wife.

Yes. Iirc one of the people he had executed (for sound legal and political
reasons) was the husband of one of his sisters but I've never seen any
indication of what she thought about it, and I've often wondered if in fact
he was abusive and Richard thought his siser was better of without him.

> Does that help at all, Claire? Or Neil?

Yes, it does. Thanks. All of it is evidence against the supposition that
he was a bad or cold husband, let alone that he murdered his wife - whether
or not they were a love-match in the modern sense, he seems to have been
both very fond of her and to have had firm views about husbands being
courtly and affectionate to their wives, which should be in the FAQs I
think.

This is in itself possibly evidence of Ann's strong character. People tend
to imprint on their parents or guardians, and usually choose partners who
remind them in some way of their parents. It's hard to believe that Cecily
Neville's son, raised in part by Ann Beauchamp, would have been so devoted
to a limp bit of arm candy. Especially as the bit of business with young
Bess and the changes of clothes suggests that Ann was showy and lively
rather than put-upon. [Unfortunately in Edward's case fixating on strong,
commanding women who reminded him of Mum turned out rather badly.]

Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?

Sir Thomas St Leger, who was executed by Richard III for treason, was the widower of Richard's sister Anne.
 
Helen


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Proposed FAQ area


 

From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area

> but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be."

Yes. He's not just saying "I'm unhappy about her death" but "I'm as unhappy
about her death as it's possible to be", poor boy, which suggests this is a
sincere statement and not just propaganda.

> And as I mentioned in another post, he swore publicly in 1484 to require
> any husbands that he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love and
> entreat them,

I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd guess it
means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them around" but
"buy them treats" is also a possibility!

> as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."

It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll
have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.

> These are his actual words as recorded in the signed document and they
> clearly indicate the way that he thinks a man should treat his wife.

Yes. Iirc one of the people he had executed (for sound legal and political
reasons) was the husband of one of his sisters but I've never seen any
indication of what she thought about it, and I've often wondered if in fact
he was abusive and Richard thought his siser was better of without him.

> Does that help at all, Claire? Or Neil?

Yes, it does. Thanks. All of it is evidence against the supposition that
he was a bad or cold husband, let alone that he murdered his wife - whether
or not they were a love-match in the modern sense, he seems to have been
both very fond of her and to have had firm views about husbands being
courtly and affectionate to their wives, which should be in the FAQs I
think.

This is in itself possibly evidence of Ann's strong character. People tend
to imprint on their parents or guardians, and usually choose partners who
remind them in some way of their parents. It's hard to believe that Cecily
Neville's son, raised in part by Ann Beauchamp, would have been so devoted
to a limp bit of arm candy. Especially as the bit of business with young
Bess and the changes of clothes suggests that Ann was showy and lively
rather than put-upon. [Unfortunately in Edward's case fixating on strong,
commanding women who reminded him of Mum turned out rather badly.]

Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>
> Quoted in recent messages in the last couple of days - the fact that when
> she was ill he spent a fortune on partially endowing a college (or was it a
> hospital?) in her name, and the description of his still visiting the queen
> every night and having to be forbidden her bed because of her illness. I
> don't know what the sources are but presumably the people who made the posts
> do.
>


It was Queen's College in Cambridge, but it wasn't when she was already dying, but in July 1484. Why I found it curious was that their son was already dead and, cynically speaking, she was 'useless' as a queen by then, as she was quite unlikely to carry any more children. And yet that's when he makes those grants in her name - and not just any grants, but astoundingly lavish ones, the condition of which was (as before) that Anne was recognised as patroness and one of the founders of the college.

To me, that gesture speaks of loyalty and affection; but of course, someone else might interpret it differently.

Queen's College would probably have more information about those grants in their records? They were taken away by Henry VII, though.

In the precontract section, something about exactly who Eleanor Butler was and how well connected?

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 21:48
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area

 
Neil Trump wrote:
>
>
> To all:
>
> Continuing from yesterday, this is what I would like to propose.
>
> 1/ Those people interested in compiling an FAQ section, please email me off list to declare an interest and that you are OK to put something together.
>
> 2/ Post normally to the list those topics that people believe are the most common areas for new people to be aware of. Perhaps we could do another list of advanced FAQ's for some of the more in depth areas.
>
> Once we have a list of volunteers to compile the FAQ's and a list of topics then we can link people up with those topics.
>
> If this sounds OK with people then we can hopefully get something up and running soon

Carol responds:

I've already responded to Neil offlist to express an interest (given that it was my idea to begin with).

Here are the questions I originally posted (in a different order since they weren't chronological):

Were Anne and Richard legally married?

What is Titulus Regius?

What is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate?

Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews?

Did Richard want to marry his niece?

I would add the obvious question, "Did Richard have a hunchback and a withered arm?" and a final question, "Where can I find out more information on Richard III?"

I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to mine. Also, I haven't sorted mine into basic or advanced, but Titulus Regius would almost certainly qualify as advanced as would the legality of the marriage (which I hope we can get Marie to answer in a condensed version of her brilliant article).

I would be happy to answer one or two of my own questions, whichever ones Neil chooses to assign to me.

Carol

Hi All   
 We are getting off topic again I believe, please as Neil asks if you want to discuss something else change the topic.
I have just plowed through messages which I thought were about FAQ to find no they were not.
Please do as Neil asks.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

That is amusing. I don't credit the idea of Arthur being killed by his father for one moment but if some of them think that the ex-Princes were alive in late August 1485 then they cannot rule out "Perkin" as real either.
----- Original Message -----
From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area



Eileen: I've been lurking on the Henry Tudor "Society" facepage and some Doubting Thomas Tudors have been worrying about rumors that Hank 7 did away with the princes - not Richard. And that Hank 7 may have knocked off Arthur in favor of Hank 8. I laugh at all of this stuff but, again, rumors tend to come full circle, don't they? Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah Maire...you've made my chuckle...again. Its good we can find a little humour here...if not we would probably feel like taking a long walk on a short pier....Eileen :0)
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for that info! Of course, the poor man's enemies will simply say that he was monitoring her poison intake. My intuition says he was damned concerned for childhood friend and consort. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it be helpful to point out that Richard never left Westminster from the period that Anne fell gravely ill..i.e. the whole of December, the whole of January excepting 6 days at Windsor , the whole of February excepting 5 days again at Windsor, and the whole of March, Anne dying on the 16th March. This is according to Rhoda Edward's Itinerary of King Richard lll...I ignore the days where he was in the City of London as obviously he returned home to Westminster...
> > >
> > > Surely that would make a good argument that Richard was close to Anne...?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Neil Trump wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Claire,
> > > >
> > > > Is your evidence primary or conjecture? if it is primary what are the sources?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:26, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure that other forum members will think of other questions to add to
> > > > > > mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > "What was the relationship between Ann and his wife?" I think we hav e
> > > > > enough evidence that it was a warm, close marriage, whether or not it was a
> > > > > love-match from the outset.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Claire wrote:
>
> [snip} I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd guess it means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them around" but "buy them treats" is also a possibility!

Carol responds:

"Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British English!) I guess the closest equivalent would be "deal with." In other words, he's promising to make the future husbands swear to be kind to their wives.

Claire:>
> > as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
>
> It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.

Carol responds:

Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you don't want to do that.
>
Claire:
> Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?

Carol responds:

Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing. It's certainly a lot cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was made by an enemy, so I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or compliment, as you suggest. I wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Claire wrote:
>
> [snip} I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd guess it means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them around" but "buy them treats" is also a possibility!

Carol responds:

"Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British English!) I guess the closest equivalent would be "deal with." In other words, he's promising to make the future husbands swear to be kind to their wives.

Claire:>
> > as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
>
> It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.

Carol responds:

Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you don't want to do that.
>
Claire:
> Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?

Carol responds:

Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing. It's certainly a lot cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was made by an enemy, so I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or compliment, as you suggest. I wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.

Carol

This is probably an impossible task, but right now I feel strongly in need
of a page about how noble medieval women thought, especially their
attitudes towards their children. I've just looked at the National
Archives biographical page on Cecily Neville, & my take-away is a strong
sense of her willingness to use her own children as pawns in the game of
getting & staying in power. (And the debate has been going on "forever"
about Elizabeth Woodville & her supposed accommodation with the supposed
murderer of her sons).

Is there any actual evidence on this subject, or are we forced to speculate
endlessly about their motivation when trying to make sense of their known
actions?

A J

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:04 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Claire wrote:
> >
> > [snip} I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd
> guess it means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them
> around" but "buy them treats" is also a possibility!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat
> them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British
> English!) I guess the closest equivalent would be "deal with." In other
> words, he's promising to make the future husbands swear to be kind to their
> wives.
>
> Claire:>
> > > as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my
> displeasure."
> >
> > It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll
> have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you
> don't want to do that.
> >
> Claire:
> > Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing. It's certainly a lot
> cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was made by an enemy, so
> I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or compliment, as you suggest. I
> wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

liz williams <wrote:
>
> In the precontract section, something about exactly who Eleanor Butler was and how well connected?

Carol responds:

I'm pretty sure that would be covered under the precontract question since her identity as the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter is an important reason why the precontract (marriage) was such a big deal. But maybe we could have a question something like "Who was Eleanor Butler and why is she important?" with a cross reference to the precontract question instead of a full answer. Would that work (to avoid duplication)?

On a silly note, my spell checker wanted me to change "Shrewsbury's" to "shrubberies"!

Carol

He was good to his son-in-law Herbert - treating him to six hundred pounds a year.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area



"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Claire wrote:
>
> [snip} I'm not entirely sure what "entreat them" means - anybody? I'd guess it means "ask them nicely if you want something, don't boss them around" but "buy them treats" is also a possibility!

Carol responds:

"Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British English!) I guess the closest equivalent would be "deal with." In other words, he's promising to make the future husbands swear to be kind to their wives.

Claire:>
> > as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
>
> It sounds so polite and formal like that, but it's really "... or you'll have me to answer to." It's fighting talk.

Carol responds:

Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you don't want to do that.
>
Claire:
> Have you had a look at the cute piggy yet?

Carol responds:

Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing. It's certainly a lot cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was made by an enemy, so I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or compliment, as you suggest. I wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.

Carol

Carol said 

snip>
 But maybe we could have a question something like "Who was Eleanor Butler and why is she important?" with a cross reference to the precontract question instead of a full answer. Would that work (to avoid duplication)?

On a silly note, my spell checker wanted me to change "Shrewsbury's" to "shrubberies"!

Carol
 
Liz replied:
 
that sounds good.  I don't use spell checker on Yahoo (as you may have noticed)

Carol said

> On a silly note, my spell checker wanted me to change "Shrewsbury's" to
> "shrubberies"!

There was probably quite a lot going on in the shrubbery - especially when
Edward was around. Supposedly Greensleeves had green sleeves because she'd
been having it off on the grass and leaning on her elbows, although I don't
know how well-attested that is or wehther it's just somebody's theory.

He [H7] DID get a decent tomb however, nearly worth the admission fee on it's own!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 0:39
>Subject: Re: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>
> 
>From: mairemulholland
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:15 AM
>Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>> Oh, was it the Beefeaters? Well, he had style, I'll admit that! Maire.
>
>And he did pay for a tombstone for Richard - and whilst it wasn't as
>expensive as you'd normally expect a king's tomb to be, this should not be
>construed as an insult, because he left instructions that his own funeral
>should be carried out "with all royal and proper magnificence but no
>outrageous expense", or words to that effect. He was tight, but he was
>consistently tight - he wasn't one of those dictators who take from the poor
>to spend it on themselves.
>
>
>
>
>

Beefeaters? [Yeomen of the Guard]

In view of the problems of previous Monarchs, Senior & Junior Members of both the Yorkist & Lancastrian line had experienced from fellow members of the 'Nobility' Small wonder he set up a system of 'Yeomen,' [Men from the Common Stock.] 
who could thereforebe Trusted. 

Henry VII spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of effort 'Enriching himself but ensuring that the 'Nobility' was kept relatively poor.

His Choice of the NAME Arthur for his oldest son perhaps indicates his intent to either: 
1.] 'Emphasise his Welshness'.    
2.] Emphasise a 'New Start' [No use of Edward, Henry or Richard as in previous dynasties for Royal KINGS Names.
3.] His son Henry VIII Later destroyed ANYONE with a Royal Lineage he could lay hands on.

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur. [From a Celtic Word for a Bear.]



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 1:08
>Subject: Re: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>
> 
>From: EileenB
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:40 AM
>Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>> An 18th century transcript of wardrobe accounts records the payment of
>> £10.1s to James Keyley for King Richards tombe...
>
>That was just to pay for a stone, though, not for a procession or vestments
>or anything like that, and it's equivalent to well over £6,000 nowadays
>(about $10,000). Whilst a small amount for a king's funeral it's a pretty
>decent amount to spend on a slab of carved stone.
>
>> Funeral expenses another unprecedented £7,000 including £1000 for black
>> cloth and 3,606 lbs of candlewax....
>
>Fat Harry obviously didn't do as he was told, regarding outrageous
>expenses - but that wasn't his father's fault!
>
>It seems to me that Richard and Henry were alike in that each of them saw
>the kingship as a chance to test a theory about how the country should be
>governed, rather than as a means to self-agrandisement. But Richard's
>theory was about social justice, and Henry's was about financial management.
>
>
>
>
>

That's good. My Q & A form is just a suggestion, or first draft.

I hope the final FAQ section will include the fact that Alfred the Great set his nephews aside because England needed a competent adult leader and parliament supported Richard for similar reasons.

If there's a better way to say it, I'll vote for it.

Marion


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: phaecilia
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
>
>
> > Q: What did Richard III and Alfred the Great have in common?
>
> I'm not sure if that's a Frequently Asked Question! How about "Why did
> Parliament ask Richard to take the throne?" and then work the bit about
> Alfred in?
>

Arthur wrote:
[snip]

> Henry VII spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of effort 'Enriching himself but ensuring that the 'Nobility' was kept relatively poor.
>
> His Choice of the NAME Arthur for his oldest son perhaps indicates his intent to either: 
> 1.] 'Emphasise his Welshness'.    
> 2.] Emphasise a 'New Start' [No use of Edward, Henry or Richard as in previous dynasties for Royal KINGS Names.
> 3.] His son Henry VIII Later destroyed ANYONE with a Royal Lineage he could lay hands on.

Carol responds:

Yes, but that last point hardly qualifies as a reason why Henry would name his son Arthur (and he, himself, executed two Yorkist heirs, John of Gloucester and Edward of York, along with one possible heir, Perkin Warbeck. He also tricked and arrested Edmund Pole, yet another of Richard III's nephews, whom Henry VIII promptly executed on his father's death.

You're certainly right about his reasons for naming his first son Arthur. He moved the pregnant Elizabeth of York to Winchester so that the child could be born in "Camelot." (He wisely didn't move his Prince of Wales to be raised near the Welsh, though! The one thing I admire Henry VII for is avoiding the mistakes of his predecessors.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area - Beefeaters.


> (and he, himself, executed two Yorkist heirs, John of Gloucester and
> Edward of York,

I've been meaning to ask about that. During one of the brief interludes
whehn I could afford the memebrship fee, the Ricardian carried an article
about the fact that a "John Gloster" appeared on a list of names of people
whom Henry had pardoned. Is it known that John definitely was killed?

> You're certainly right about his reasons for naming his first son Arthur.
> He moved the pregnant Elizabeth of York to Winchester so that the child
> could be born in "Camelot."

It's a long story not really relevant here, but the identification of
Camelot with Winchester is almost certainly an error for Caerwent, which is
the same name in translation. Caerwent and Winchester seem to have both
been referred to by either name indiscriminately. The early Arthurian tales
place Camelot near Caerleon - which is just a few miles from Caerwent.
Nowadays Caerwent is just a tiny village in South Wales but at the time it
was a 30ft-high fortress and one of the last great strongholds of Rome in
Britain.

Claire M Jordan wrote:

> [snip] During one of the brief interludes whehn I could afford the memebrship fee, the Ricardian carried an article about the fact that a "John Gloster" appeared on a list of names of people whom Henry had pardoned. Is it known that John definitely was killed? [snip}

Carol responds:

All we have, besides a reference in Perkin Warbeck's confession to an illegitimate son of Richard's being in Henry VII's hands, is a statement in Buck that ""there was a base son of King Richard III made away, and secretly, having been kept long before in prison." Buck states that it had to do with an Irish conspiracy to make John the king of England. (The Irish remained Yorkist after Richard's death and strongly opposed to the Tudor. In 1487, they fought for Richard's former friends and supporters at the Battle of Stoke and were, unfortunately, mercilessly slaughtered.) There is no other source for the story, but given the Tudor policy of wiping out Yorkist heirs and the absence of any reference to John after his initial pardon by Henry Tudor, there seems to be no reason to question it. Buck was a thorough researcher and must have had a source for this assertion just as he did for the epitaph on Richard's tomb.

Carol