Potentially annoying questions for today
Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 13:57:14
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 14:21:06
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 14:37:48
I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 14:57:35
He's right AJ
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
>
> First son ………. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
>
> Second son……Becomes Warrior
>
> Third son………..Becomes Priest
>
> Fourth son……..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
>
>
>
> The traditional professions’ were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> I'll leave (1) to someone else
> (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
>
> Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
> Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
>
> First son ………. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
>
> Second son……Becomes Warrior
>
> Third son………..Becomes Priest
>
> Fourth son……..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
>
>
>
> The traditional professions’ were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> I'll leave (1) to someone else
> (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
>
> Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
> Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 16:10:41
ajhibbard wrote:
"Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here. (It
is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't quite
there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of medieval
Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national politics,
chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?"
I'll have a try at (1):
None.
If the death had been due to accident or illness, there's no reason not to
announce it. People did die from accidents and illness, even members (or
offspring) of the ruling class. Regrettable perhaps, but there would be no
need for a "cover-up". A simple announcement, a dignified service (even if
illegitimate, still the son of a King) and masses said afterwards. Finis.
If the death had been the result of intent, then it would matter whose
intent and why, aka motive. Richard's motive has been said to have been his
desire for the crown and the boys stood in his way, but Titulus Regius blows
THAT out of the water. There's always the possibility that a second party
(Buckingham?, Tudor? Tudor's mother? parties unknown) made a stab at getting
rid of the boys, only got one and Richard, to protect the remaining boy,
kept the news hidden to prevent another attempt.
I think I've covered the major arguments for/against, but feel free to
correct.
Doug
"Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here. (It
is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't quite
there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of medieval
Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national politics,
chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?"
I'll have a try at (1):
None.
If the death had been due to accident or illness, there's no reason not to
announce it. People did die from accidents and illness, even members (or
offspring) of the ruling class. Regrettable perhaps, but there would be no
need for a "cover-up". A simple announcement, a dignified service (even if
illegitimate, still the son of a King) and masses said afterwards. Finis.
If the death had been the result of intent, then it would matter whose
intent and why, aka motive. Richard's motive has been said to have been his
desire for the crown and the boys stood in his way, but Titulus Regius blows
THAT out of the water. There's always the possibility that a second party
(Buckingham?, Tudor? Tudor's mother? parties unknown) made a stab at getting
rid of the boys, only got one and Richard, to protect the remaining boy,
kept the news hidden to prevent another attempt.
I think I've covered the major arguments for/against, but feel free to
correct.
Doug
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 16:16:53
A very good stab Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
ajhibbard wrote:
"Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here. (It
is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't quite
there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of medieval
Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national politics,
chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?"
I'll have a try at (1):
None.
If the death had been due to accident or illness, there's no reason not to
announce it. People did die from accidents and illness, even members (or
offspring) of the ruling class. Regrettable perhaps, but there would be no
need for a "cover-up". A simple announcement, a dignified service (even if
illegitimate, still the son of a King) and masses said afterwards. Finis.
If the death had been the result of intent, then it would matter whose
intent and why, aka motive. Richard's motive has been said to have been his
desire for the crown and the boys stood in his way, but Titulus Regius blows
THAT out of the water. There's always the possibility that a second party
(Buckingham?, Tudor? Tudor's mother? parties unknown) made a stab at getting
rid of the boys, only got one and Richard, to protect the remaining boy,
kept the news hidden to prevent another attempt.
I think I've covered the major arguments for/against, but feel free to
correct.
Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
ajhibbard wrote:
"Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here. (It
is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't quite
there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of medieval
Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national politics,
chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?"
I'll have a try at (1):
None.
If the death had been due to accident or illness, there's no reason not to
announce it. People did die from accidents and illness, even members (or
offspring) of the ruling class. Regrettable perhaps, but there would be no
need for a "cover-up". A simple announcement, a dignified service (even if
illegitimate, still the son of a King) and masses said afterwards. Finis.
If the death had been the result of intent, then it would matter whose
intent and why, aka motive. Richard's motive has been said to have been his
desire for the crown and the boys stood in his way, but Titulus Regius blows
THAT out of the water. There's always the possibility that a second party
(Buckingham?, Tudor? Tudor's mother? parties unknown) made a stab at getting
rid of the boys, only got one and Richard, to protect the remaining boy,
kept the news hidden to prevent another attempt.
I think I've covered the major arguments for/against, but feel free to
correct.
Doug
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 17:18:39
So, IF any of my York ancestors have a tie, they were the fourth sons, of fourth sons, and so on. The earliest one I have now left for the Colonies in 1650's, and was a Sea Captain.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:38 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions for today
I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:38 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions for today
I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> " ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 20:25:35
As a fourth son I used to play a lot of Nintendo. Now I just mainly bum about.
My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions for today
I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions for today
I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order for occupations of aristocracy was
First son &&&. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince etc.,
Second son&&Becomes Warrior
Third son&&&..Becomes Priest
Fourth son&&..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
I'll leave (1) to someone else
(2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events took over.
Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 21:36:17
Does anyone know that lovely, dark little Ealing movie, "Kind Hearts and
Coronets"? At one point, Dennis Price's character informs us: "The
D'Ascoynes' seem to have followed the tradition of the landed gentry and
sent the fool of the family to the church." (this is a paraphrase).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM, david rayner
<theblackprussian@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> As a fourth son I used to play a lot of Nintendo. Now I just mainly bum
> about.
>
> My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
> Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions
> for today
>
>
>
>
> I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order
> for occupations of aristocracy was
>
> First son ýýý. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince
> etc.,
>
> Second sonýýBecomes Warrior
>
> Third sonýýý..Becomes Priest
>
> Fourth sonýý..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
>
> The traditional professionsý were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
>
> George
>
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions
> for today
>
> Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> I'll leave (1) to someone else
> (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of
> the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in
> politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church
> was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who
> eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive
> for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer
> survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as
> the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events
> took over.
>
> Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was
> embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow
> threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> today
>
> Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Coronets"? At one point, Dennis Price's character informs us: "The
D'Ascoynes' seem to have followed the tradition of the landed gentry and
sent the fool of the family to the church." (this is a paraphrase).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM, david rayner
<theblackprussian@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> As a fourth son I used to play a lot of Nintendo. Now I just mainly bum
> about.
>
> My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
> Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions
> for today
>
>
>
>
> I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order
> for occupations of aristocracy was
>
> First son ýýý. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince
> etc.,
>
> Second sonýýBecomes Warrior
>
> Third sonýýý..Becomes Priest
>
> Fourth sonýý..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
>
> The traditional professionsý were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
>
> George
>
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions
> for today
>
> Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> I'll leave (1) to someone else
> (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of
> the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in
> politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church
> was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who
> eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive
> for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer
> survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as
> the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events
> took over.
>
> Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was
> embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow
> threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> today
>
> Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-21 21:45:10
I know the movie. With the darling Joan Greenwood. What a voice she had! Maire.
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know that lovely, dark little Ealing movie, "Kind Hearts and
> Coronets"? At one point, Dennis Price's character informs us: "The
> D'Ascoynes' seem to have followed the tradition of the landed gentry and
> sent the fool of the family to the church." (this is a paraphrase).
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM, david rayner
> <theblackprussian@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As a fourth son I used to play a lot of Nintendo. Now I just mainly bum
> > about.
> >
> > My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
> > Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions
> > for today
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order
> > for occupations of aristocracy was
> >
> > First son ………. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince
> > etc.,
> >
> > Second son……Becomes Warrior
> >
> > Third son………..Becomes Priest
> >
> > Fourth son……..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
> >
> > The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions
> > for today
> >
> > Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> > I'll leave (1) to someone else
> > (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of
> > the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in
> > politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church
> > was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> > One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who
> > eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive
> > for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer
> > survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> > It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as
> > the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events
> > took over.
> >
> > Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was
> > embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow
> > threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> > Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> > today
> >
> > Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> > (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> > (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> > conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> > (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> > variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> > quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> > medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> > politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know that lovely, dark little Ealing movie, "Kind Hearts and
> Coronets"? At one point, Dennis Price's character informs us: "The
> D'Ascoynes' seem to have followed the tradition of the landed gentry and
> sent the fool of the family to the church." (this is a paraphrase).
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM, david rayner
> <theblackprussian@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As a fourth son I used to play a lot of Nintendo. Now I just mainly bum
> > about.
> >
> > My brothers sort of fit the pattern, though all in the wrong order.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 14:38
> > Subject: RE: Potentially annoying questions
> > for today
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that I read somewhere that the traditional form of pecking order
> > for occupations of aristocracy was
> >
> > First son ………. Takes on duties of Father with family estate, Duke, Prince
> > etc.,
> >
> > Second son……Becomes Warrior
> >
> > Third son………..Becomes Priest
> >
> > Fourth son……..Plays Nintendo? ( not too sure about this)
> >
> > The traditional professions' were To Fight , To Heal, To Pray To Teach
> >
> > George
> >
> > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Potentially annoying questions
> > for today
> >
> > Hi AJ I'll try to help a bit!
> > I'll leave (1) to someone else
> > (2) the clergy seemed to be the chosen occupation for the younger sons of
> > the nobility and that certainly didn't mean that they weren't involved in
> > politics - think Becket earlier, Wolsey later, or John Morton. The Church
> > was strong because it had a different set of rules, its own courts etc, etc.
> > One example of a power player is Warwick's brother, George Neville, who
> > eventually became Archbishop of York and actually held Edward IV captive
> > for a short while just after Edgcote. Like Morton he was a wheeler-dealer
> > survivor but died, naturally, quite young.
> > It has been mooted by some (Josephine Wilkinson for one) that Richard as
> > the youngest brother could have been destined for the Church until events
> > took over.
> >
> > Hope this helps. Yahoo is a pain I agree. I joined in November and was
> > embarrassed to be asking 'old questions' and not being able to follow
> > threads - which I still can't if I miss even a day. Cheers Hilary
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "ajhibbard@... " ajhibbard@... >
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> > Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> > today
> >
> > Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> > (It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> > (1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> > conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> > (2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> > variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> > quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> > medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> > politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-22 06:16:49
Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
A J
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-24 13:41:09
There is an 'Interesting Brass' at Winwick Church, near Warrington to Sir Peter Legh, who following the death of his wife,
took 'Holy Orders'. The Brass shows a 'Knight in Full Armour' wearing a [Cope?] over his armour & is Dated 1527.
The wife's figure also appears on the brass.
Also at the same church tower are niches containing restored statues of Saints Anthony and Oswald.
To the right of Saint Anthony is a carved pig.
I understand two or three other examples of 'Knight & Priest Brasses' exist in England. We must assume that the 'Iconoclasts' of the late Tudor & AGAIN the Cromwellian eras must have destroyed many more. [Even in this MODERN era metal thieves operate.]
Kind Regards,
Arthur .
>________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
>Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
>Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
>(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
>(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
>conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
>(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
>variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
>quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
>medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
>politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
>A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
took 'Holy Orders'. The Brass shows a 'Knight in Full Armour' wearing a [Cope?] over his armour & is Dated 1527.
The wife's figure also appears on the brass.
Also at the same church tower are niches containing restored statues of Saints Anthony and Oswald.
To the right of Saint Anthony is a carved pig.
I understand two or three other examples of 'Knight & Priest Brasses' exist in England. We must assume that the 'Iconoclasts' of the late Tudor & AGAIN the Cromwellian eras must have destroyed many more. [Even in this MODERN era metal thieves operate.]
Kind Regards,
Arthur .
>________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
>Subject: Potentially annoying questions for today
>
>
>
>Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
>(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
>(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
>conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
>(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
>variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
>quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
>medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
>politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
>A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Potentially annoying questions for today
2013-02-24 14:08:18
Thanks Arthur.
As a modern American, it is hard for me to understand how much
self-determination was possible for anybody in England at that time. And
that led to my wondering how common it was for individuals to break the
mold seemingly set for them at birth. I'm guessing not very common,
although your brass suggests that it did happen. This observation, in
turn, makes me want to understand more about what the particular mold was
for Richard. From some other replies, it sounds as if that would have
changed as he grew up & moved from 4th son to 3rd son, and even more, when
as an adult he moved from 2nd son to only son.
A J
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> There is an 'Interesting Brass' at Winwick Church, near Warrington to
> Sir Peter Legh, who following the death of his wife,
> took 'Holy Orders'. The Brass shows a 'Knight in Full Armour' wearing a
> [Cope?] over his armour & is Dated 1527.
> The wife's figure also appears on the brass.
>
> Also at the same church tower are niches containing restored statues of
> Saints Anthony and Oswald.
> To the right of Saint Anthony is a carved pig.
>
> I understand two or three other examples of 'Knight & Priest Brasses'
> exist in England. We must assume that the 'Iconoclasts' of the late Tudor &
> AGAIN the Cromwellian eras must have destroyed many more. [Even in this
> MODERN era metal thieves operate.]
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur .
>
> >________________________________
> > From: "ajhibbard@..." ajhibbard@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> >Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> today
> >
> >
> >
> >Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> >(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> >(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> >conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> >(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> >variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> >quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> >medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> >politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> >A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
As a modern American, it is hard for me to understand how much
self-determination was possible for anybody in England at that time. And
that led to my wondering how common it was for individuals to break the
mold seemingly set for them at birth. I'm guessing not very common,
although your brass suggests that it did happen. This observation, in
turn, makes me want to understand more about what the particular mold was
for Richard. From some other replies, it sounds as if that would have
changed as he grew up & moved from 4th son to 3rd son, and even more, when
as an adult he moved from 2nd son to only son.
A J
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> There is an 'Interesting Brass' at Winwick Church, near Warrington to
> Sir Peter Legh, who following the death of his wife,
> took 'Holy Orders'. The Brass shows a 'Knight in Full Armour' wearing a
> [Cope?] over his armour & is Dated 1527.
> The wife's figure also appears on the brass.
>
> Also at the same church tower are niches containing restored statues of
> Saints Anthony and Oswald.
> To the right of Saint Anthony is a carved pig.
>
> I understand two or three other examples of 'Knight & Priest Brasses'
> exist in England. We must assume that the 'Iconoclasts' of the late Tudor &
> AGAIN the Cromwellian eras must have destroyed many more. [Even in this
> MODERN era metal thieves operate.]
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur .
>
> >________________________________
> > From: "ajhibbard@..." ajhibbard@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 13:57
> >Subject: Potentially annoying questions for
> today
> >
> >
> >
> >Apologies again if these have already been discussed "to death" here.
> >(It is very difficult to search through previous posts on Yahoo).
> >(1) If only one of the princes died during Richard's reign, what are the
> >conceivable reasons that might not have been made public?
> >(2) It's seems pretty clear that women went into religious orders for a
> >variety of reasons, & that men who wanted to be "players" but weren't
> >quite there already might do so. Do we have undisputed examples of
> >medieval Englishmen, who by birth, should have been involved in national
> >politics, chose the religious life (or scholarly, or ?) instead?
> >A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.