the vexed question of the Buck letter

I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly
just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see
what others think.
Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
"When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter
to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in
whom she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved
him, and that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king
his brother, then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King
Edward's children. She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for
her in the cause of the marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her
only joy and maker in this world, and that she was his in heart and in
thought, in body and in all. And then she intimated that the better part
of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.
And all these be her own words, written with her own hand, and this is
the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen the autograph or original
draft under her own hand..."
The wording is pretty intense, and seems to suggest this isn't just some
political union being discussed. The words "his in heart and in thought,
in body and in all" if actually used by Elizabeth, imply a fairly
intense amount of passion, at least on her side, and even hint at some
form of physical relationship already existing. It's a love letter by
proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of
Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a
point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we
also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to
tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry
his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart .
Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the
historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous -
love story was being enacted during these months?

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:38 AM
Subject: the vexed question of the Buck letter


> Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
"When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter
to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in
whom she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved
him, and that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king
his brother, then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King
Edward's children. She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for
her in the cause of the marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her
only joy and maker in this world, and that she was his in heart and in
thought, in body and in all. And then she intimated that the better part
of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.
And all these be her own words, written with her own hand, and this is
the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen the autograph or original
draft under her own hand..."

Well... "desirous to be married" could refer to a marriage he is arranging
for her, and "to be a mediator for
her in the cause of the marriage to the King" is actually ambiguous, because
it could also be read as "to be a mediator to the King for her in the cause
of the marriage". But the "only joy and maker" bit sounds like she is
referring to Richard as the object of her attentions and not just a
facilitator of them.

> The wording is pretty intense, and seems to suggest this isn't just some
political union being discussed. The words "his in heart and in thought,
in body and in all" if actually used by Elizabeth, imply a fairly
intense amount of passion, at least on her side, and even hint at some
form of physical relationship already existing. It's a love letter by
proxy basically.

Yes. But if she actually was in a physical relationship with him, why would
she need a proxy? "She prayed him, as before" means this isn't the first
time she's asked, either, and apparently it didn't get her anywhere so she's
trying again.

> And of course it offers rather good confirmation of
Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a
point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.

I don't see any indication of that, only that she had a passion for him, and
felt she needed help to get anywhere with it.

> Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the
historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous -
love story was being enacted during these months?

Yes, but I don't see any evidence that it was more than one-sided. It
sounds to me like an overheated teenager being a bit stalkerish.

"angelalice75" wrote:
>
> I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see what others think.
> [snip]It's a love letter by proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart . Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous - love story was being enacted during these months?

Carol responds:

Whatever Elizabeth's feelings on the matter, it would have been political suicide for Richard to contemplate a marriage to the niece who had officially declared illegitimate in the same document that declared her brothers to be ineligible for the throne. He would not have needed Catesby and Ratcliffe (whom the chronicler makes out to be so powerful that they can intimidate the king) to tell him that such a marriage would alienate his Northern supporters 0or that Elizabeth might want to take revenge for the deaths of her uncle and half-brother--no mention, interestingly, of the deaths of her two younger brothers). He would have seen much greater difficulties in not only the opprobrium he would face by marrying his niece but the necessity to legitimize her, which at the same time would legitimize her brothers, making a mockery of his own claim whether they were dead or alive. It's quite clear that the Croyland chronicler by this time either had no contact with the court or was in such a subordinate position that he did not know what was really going on--preparations for negotiations with both Portugal and Spain for possible marriage treaties.

As for Richard having an affair with his own niece, that could only happen if he were the liar and hypocrite that Tudor propaganda makes him. And not even Croyland or the Tudor sources speak of an affair, only a contemplated marriage, whose only purpose would be to prevent Henry Tudor from marrying Elizabeth--hardly sufficient reason to make a marriage that could not possibly benefit him politically or monetarily.

In other words, if the letter is real and Buck has interpreted it correctly, it is simply the desperate of a teenage girl whose betrothals have been repeatedly thwarted and who now finds herself a king's bastard instead of a princess. Maybe she hoped for what we would now call a fairytale ending, marrying the king and becoming the queen. (She eventually got that wish, but not in the form she wanted. Be careful what you wish for, Elizabeth.)

At an rate, the evidence that Richard ever considered such a marriage is nonexistent. He denied it publicly and at the same time publicly expressed his deep sadness for his wife's death. We have only buck's letter and a few signatures on books that her uncle apparently gave her to indicate Elizabeth's feelings. We have Richard's own statement in the Mercer's records to indicate his.

Carol

I think I have posed this question once today but here I go again: what gave rise to this rumor at all? Lets ignore the said letter for now and just focus on the contemporary sources...... I find it strangely disturbing that such a rumor surfaced at all.
Also, books were extremely expensive at those times. For Richard to have given them to Elizabeth shows a degree of friendship and intimacy between them. Did that " friendship" led to the rumors? And made E of Y think that he felt more for her than he actually did?
I wonder what Alison Weir's " proof" will be........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:54 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see what others think.
> > [snip]It's a love letter by proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> > If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart . Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous - love story was being enacted during these months?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Whatever Elizabeth's feelings on the matter, it would have been political suicide for Richard to contemplate a marriage to the niece who had officially declared illegitimate in the same document that declared her brothers to be ineligible for the throne. He would not have needed Catesby and Ratcliffe (whom the chronicler makes out to be so powerful that they can intimidate the king) to tell him that such a marriage would alienate his Northern supporters 0or that Elizabeth might want to take revenge for the deaths of her uncle and half-brother--no mention, interestingly, of the deaths of her two younger brothers). He would have seen much greater difficulties in not only the opprobrium he would face by marrying his niece but the necessity to legitimize her, which at the same time would legitimize her brothers, making a mockery of his own claim whether they were dead or alive. It's quite clear that the Croyland chronicler by this time either had no contact with the court or was in such a subordinate position that he did not know what was really going on--preparations for negotiations with both Portugal and Spain for possible marriage treaties.
>
> As for Richard having an affair with his own niece, that could only happen if he were the liar and hypocrite that Tudor propaganda makes him. And not even Croyland or the Tudor sources speak of an affair, only a contemplated marriage, whose only purpose would be to prevent Henry Tudor from marrying Elizabeth--hardly sufficient reason to make a marriage that could not possibly benefit him politically or monetarily.
>
> In other words, if the letter is real and Buck has interpreted it correctly, it is simply the desperate of a teenage girl whose betrothals have been repeatedly thwarted and who now finds herself a king's bastard instead of a princess. Maybe she hoped for what we would now call a fairytale ending, marrying the king and becoming the queen. (She eventually got that wish, but not in the form she wanted. Be careful what you wish for, Elizabeth.)
>
> At an rate, the evidence that Richard ever considered such a marriage is nonexistent. He denied it publicly and at the same time publicly expressed his deep sadness for his wife's death. We have only buck's letter and a few signatures on books that her uncle apparently gave her to indicate Elizabeth's feelings. We have Richard's own statement in the Mercer's records to indicate his.
>
> Carol
>
>

Angelalice75 wrote:
"Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
"When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter to
John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in whom
she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved him, and
that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king his brother,
then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King Edward's children.
She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for her in the cause of the
marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her only joy and maker in this
world, and that she was his in heart and in thought, in body and in all. And
then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that she
feared the Queen would never die. And all these be her own words, written
with her own hand, and this is the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen
the autograph or original draft under her own hand..."

Doug here:
The problem is that the first line "...here is Buck's summary", doesn't
match the last sentence "And all these be her own words...". Reading the
"summary" it's obvious Buck has written from memory, all the pronouns, as
well as the phraseology, are wrong for it to be a word-for-word copy of what
Elizabeth DID write.
I, personally, would never use such phrases as "only joy and maker in this
world" or say that I was "his in heart and in thought, in body and in all"
in a letter, but then I don't go around writing letters to 15th century
monarchs either. Which I think is what's happened here. Elizabeth wrote a
letter, in the style used in the late 15th century and Buck's summary didn't
reflect the differences in style between the late 15th and late 16th
centuries.
However, there might be a possible way to answer, at least partially, your
question. Do we have any other examples of contemporary letters written by
someone requesting something from a monarch? Or even a patron? That should
give us an idea of how exact Buck's "summary" really is.
Doug

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I think I have posed this question once today but here I go again: what gave rise to this rumor at all? Lets ignore the said letter for now and just focus on the contemporary sources...... I find it strangely disturbing that such a rumor surfaced at all.
> Also, books were extremely expensive at those times. For Richard to have given them to Elizabeth shows a degree of friendship and intimacy between them. Did that " friendship" led to the rumors? And made E of Y think that he felt more for her than he actually did?
> I wonder what Alison Weir's " proof" will be........
>

But the existence of a rumour only proves the existence of a rumour. 'There's no smoke without fire' is a false supposition - there may be fire, but nobody knows where it is, and the smoke might be coming out of the rumour-monger's own ears! Just think about all the gossip going on about modern celebrities: some of it has some foundation in truth, but a lot of the time the truth is twisted beyond recognition, and a lot of the time some 'things that everybody knows' about any given celebrity are pure fiction that's been accepted as fact. Sometimes that fiction might be a malicious rumour started by someone close to the person, so it sounds more like a 'fact'. And nowadays we have such good tools available for spreading and verifying *accurate* information, but they're used to spread misinformation in increasing amounts. What does that say about human nature?

A lot of the time, people agree to interpret the available facts one way and nobody even cares if it's true. I remember seeing some pictures of Prince Edward supposedly 'beating' his dogs with a stick, and I could tell straight away he was just separating two fighting dogs (having done it myself quite often). But no, everyone commenting on that online news article was reacting to him as a dog-beater and I'm pretty sure a lot, if not most, of them still think of him as such.

So the rumour might have started simply from the presence of Elizabeth's nubile self at the court, or from Richard dancing with her, or being kind to her, or something that somebody said that was misconstrued as something else... In fact, Anne might have been very kind to her and bought her expensive gifts, and those gifts might have been interpreted as being from the King. Or Elizabeth might have given rise to those rumours with her own behaviour, as was discussed yesterday. The one thing we can tell from Buck's letter, if it existed, is that young Elizabeth was hyperbolical, silly and very imprudent with her words. If she was similarly hyperbolical, silly and imprudent in person, AND had a crush on her uncle, she must have been a continuous source of embarrassment at the court.

(We don't know if Richard gave her those books, by the way, or why he did if he did. She might simply have borrowed them and signed them, or she might have borrowed them and kept them (we've all met such people, I think!), or she might have asked for them and he couldn't deny her, or she might have kept them after his death to remember him by. Or something else.)

At any rate, Richard didn't end up marrying her, and wasn't even planning to keep her close to him in the same country, so if it was the kind of mutual crazy incestuous passion that would defy all reason and sense of decency (and Carol gave a great description why *marrying* her would have been a ridiculous and disastrous idea), then that irrational passion obviously faded away quickly after his wife died.

Either way, even if we choose believe the worst of Richard, I think we can safely dismiss the idea of a physical relationship. Imagine getting his niece pregnant while still married to Anne!!

Then there is, of course, the bit about Anne and Elizabeth dressing alike at Christmas:

'All the same, it cannot be passed over in silence that at this Christmas time unseemly stress was laid upon dancing and festivity and upon the presentation of vain changes of apparel of identical shape and colour to the queen Anne and the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late king'.

To be honest, this makes it sound like Anne and Elizabeth were besties, and I really don't understand how and why people jump to conclusions that this must have been Richard's idea. (And that he was, what? Trying to get used to the idea of replacing Anne with Elizabeth? Humiliating Anne by showing her the younger and probably more fertile version of herself? What exactly would Richard's motive be in telling them to dress alike and what would he hope to gain from it?)

Indeed, this is my alternative interpretation: 'unseemly tress was laid upon dancing and festivity' because Richard and Anne were both grieving their son, and Anne was possibly already ill, and they were desperately trying to distract themselves from their sorrows. Anne in particular was trying to comfort herself with retail therapy and a superficial interest in what she was wearing, and in Elizabeth she found herself a surrogate little sister with similar inclinations. They chatted about clothes and compared fabrics together and tried on different dresses together, and decided it would be fun to dress alike at the Christmas festivities, just to show everyone what good friends they were. They had soooo many new dresses they wanted to wear that they kept sneaking out of the party to change clothes ('vain changes of apparel') and giggled like little girls as they were doing so.

Again, I think that's just as plausible an explanation as the other one (and makes more psychological sense, IMO).

You know, there's one thing in particular that rubs me the wrong way about the 'Richard was planning to replace Anne' scenario.

Edward died in April 1484. After the first shock had passed, they must both have been painfully aware that he desperately needed a new heir and that she wouldn't be able to give him one. He really *should* have started thinking about the possibility of annulment and replacing her with new breeding stock. It was the only option, surely, however painful.

But what does he do instead? In July 1484, he makes those incredibly lavish grants of lands to the Queen's College, in consideration of his wife. Wasn't the condition of all these grants that Anne would be considered one of the founders of the college, just as Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville had been? And hadn't they already given plenty to the Queen's College? Why make such an impressive public gesture of generosity, and why that particular timing?

In other words, you're cementing your wife's public profile as your Queen just as you're making devious plans to get rid of her. Makes sense! (Or not.)

Seriously, *how* do you explain this? I can't interpret it any other way except as a gesture of loyalty to Anne.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> (We don't know if Richard gave her those books, by the way, or why he did
> if he did. She might simply have borrowed them and signed them, or she
> might have borrowed them and kept them (we've all met such people, I
> think!), or she might have asked for them and he couldn't deny her, or she
> might have kept them after his death to remember him by. Or something
> else.)

Clever point! Richard's book with the long prayer in it - was it his Book
of Hours? - was given to MB after his death and she scratched his name out
and wrote in her own. It's very likely that Elizabeth was also given some
of Richard's books, and she was too fond of him - in whatever way - to cross
him out.

> Then there is, of course, the bit about Anne and Elizabeth dressing alike
> at Christmas:

> 'All the same, it cannot be passed over in silence that at this Christmas
> time unseemly stress was laid upon dancing and festivity and upon the
> presentation of vain changes of apparel of identical shape and colour to
> the queen Anne and the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late
> king'.

> To be honest, this makes it sound like Anne and Elizabeth were besties,
> and I really don't understand how and why people jump to conclusions that
> this must have been Richard's idea. (And that he was, what? Trying to get
> used to the idea of replacing Anne with Elizabeth? Humiliating Anne by
> showing her the younger and probably more fertile version of herself? What
> exactly would Richard's motive be in telling them to dress alike and what
> would he hope to gain from it?)

If it was his idea, I would assume he just thought they'd look good as a
symmetrical pair, like when people think it's cute to dress kids in the same
outfit, or there was some sort of pageantry involved. They might have had
two chains of dancers leading off led by these identically dressed women,
for example. Or Elizabeth was depressed so he and/or Ann thought up this
game to cheer her up. It can't have been very nice having been a princess
and then suddenly being a bastard, so I suppose the message would be "You
are still of high status, don't think you're not." He might also have been
saying to Ann "See, you're a matched pair, you still look like a young
girl."

At the same time, you can see it might have given Elizabeth ideas - she was
a Woodville, after all, and must have heard the story of how her mother
seduced her father, and probably thought it terribly romantic.

> Indeed, this is my alternative interpretation: 'unseemly stress was laid
> upon dancing and festivity' because Richard and Anne were both grieving
> their son, and Anne was possibly already ill, and they were desperately
> trying to distract themselves from their sorrows. [cut]Again, I think
> that's just as plausible an explanation as the other one (and makes more
> psychological sense, IMO).

It would fit with von Poppelau's account. We have independent evidence that
Richard and Ann were almost out of their minds with grief when young Edward
died, but von Poppelau met Richard not long afterwards and describes him in
what sounds like slightly hysterical high spirits, as if he was
over-compensating madly - possibly in an attempt not to have a nervous
breakdown.

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> I, personally, would never use such phrases as "only joy and maker in this
world" or say that I was "his in heart and in thought, in body and in all"
in a letter, but then I don't go around writing letters to 15th century
monarchs either.

True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
his.

I must say in all my reading of Von Poppelau (my favorite anecdote that brings Richard stunningly to life), I have never inferred from it "hysteria" or "mental breakdown". Surely, as a monarch, he would have been expert at what we today call "compartmentalization." He was simply enjoying his guest and had set aside the cares of the day to engage in conversation. Maire.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > (We don't know if Richard gave her those books, by the way, or why he did
> > if he did. She might simply have borrowed them and signed them, or she
> > might have borrowed them and kept them (we've all met such people, I
> > think!), or she might have asked for them and he couldn't deny her, or she
> > might have kept them after his death to remember him by. Or something
> > else.)
>
> Clever point! Richard's book with the long prayer in it - was it his Book
> of Hours? - was given to MB after his death and she scratched his name out
> and wrote in her own. It's very likely that Elizabeth was also given some
> of Richard's books, and she was too fond of him - in whatever way - to cross
> him out.
>
> > Then there is, of course, the bit about Anne and Elizabeth dressing alike
> > at Christmas:
>
> > 'All the same, it cannot be passed over in silence that at this Christmas
> > time unseemly stress was laid upon dancing and festivity and upon the
> > presentation of vain changes of apparel of identical shape and colour to
> > the queen Anne and the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late
> > king'.
>
> > To be honest, this makes it sound like Anne and Elizabeth were besties,
> > and I really don't understand how and why people jump to conclusions that
> > this must have been Richard's idea. (And that he was, what? Trying to get
> > used to the idea of replacing Anne with Elizabeth? Humiliating Anne by
> > showing her the younger and probably more fertile version of herself? What
> > exactly would Richard's motive be in telling them to dress alike and what
> > would he hope to gain from it?)
>
> If it was his idea, I would assume he just thought they'd look good as a
> symmetrical pair, like when people think it's cute to dress kids in the same
> outfit, or there was some sort of pageantry involved. They might have had
> two chains of dancers leading off led by these identically dressed women,
> for example. Or Elizabeth was depressed so he and/or Ann thought up this
> game to cheer her up. It can't have been very nice having been a princess
> and then suddenly being a bastard, so I suppose the message would be "You
> are still of high status, don't think you're not." He might also have been
> saying to Ann "See, you're a matched pair, you still look like a young
> girl."
>
> At the same time, you can see it might have given Elizabeth ideas - she was
> a Woodville, after all, and must have heard the story of how her mother
> seduced her father, and probably thought it terribly romantic.
>
> > Indeed, this is my alternative interpretation: 'unseemly stress was laid
> > upon dancing and festivity' because Richard and Anne were both grieving
> > their son, and Anne was possibly already ill, and they were desperately
> > trying to distract themselves from their sorrows. [cut]Again, I think
> > that's just as plausible an explanation as the other one (and makes more
> > psychological sense, IMO).
>
> It would fit with von Poppelau's account. We have independent evidence that
> Richard and Ann were almost out of their minds with grief when young Edward
> died, but von Poppelau met Richard not long afterwards and describes him in
> what sounds like slightly hysterical high spirits, as if he was
> over-compensating madly - possibly in an attempt not to have a nervous
> breakdown.
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> I must say in all my reading of Von Poppelau (my favorite anecdote that
> brings Richard stunningly to life), I have never inferred from it
> "hysteria" or "mental breakdown". Surely, as a monarch, he would have been
> expert at what we today call "compartmentalization."

True. But there's an edge of excitability, all that stuff about crusades,
like a need to escape - having suffered three catastrophic bereavements
myself I feel like I know the symptoms.

Oh, he was probably tippling with the hippocras, lol!


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > I must say in all my reading of Von Poppelau (my favorite anecdote that
> > brings Richard stunningly to life), I have never inferred from it
> > "hysteria" or "mental breakdown". Surely, as a monarch, he would have been
> > expert at what we today call "compartmentalization."
>
> True. But there's an edge of excitability, all that stuff about crusades,
> like a need to escape - having suffered three catastrophic bereavements
> myself I feel like I know the symptoms.
>

Oh, great, so the clause is, "She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for her in the cause of the marriage to the King," which means either "intercede for me in the matter of my marriage to the King" or "intercede for me to the King in the matter of my marriage [to someone else]." Damn it, Buck, couldn't you have taken three seconds to figure out how to word that differently?

If she "feared the Queen would never die," and stated it just as flatly as that, without any qualifiers, I can't see that she would have escaped prosecution for treason, especially since so many in Richard's government had had it up to here with the Woodvilles.

Effusive language about how "I've only ever loved you, you, you, my sun, my moon, my stars" is pretty common in correspondence with monarchs up until, say, the early 19th century, when hypercourtesy took its place. It's a form of flattery of the all-powerful, indicating "My interests are wholly aligned with yours," and doesn't necessarily imply a wish for a physical relationship.

I can just see Richard standing up before all the nobles and going, "OK, you guys, there should be no reason whatsoever that I have to stand here before you and denounce this ridiculous rumor, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. I have zero intention of marrying my niece, never have, never will. That's going to have to suffice, because I also have no intention of revisiting this distressing, appalling, and stupid rumor ever again. You guys got that? Good, on to the tax rolls, then."

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly
> just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see
> what others think.
> Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
> "When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
> desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter
> to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in
> whom she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved
> him, and that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king
> his brother, then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King
> Edward's children. She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for
> her in the cause of the marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her
> only joy and maker in this world, and that she was his in heart and in
> thought, in body and in all. And then she intimated that the better part
> of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.
> And all these be her own words, written with her own hand, and this is
> the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen the autograph or original
> draft under her own hand..."
> The wording is pretty intense, and seems to suggest this isn't just some
> political union being discussed. The words "his in heart and in thought,
> in body and in all" if actually used by Elizabeth, imply a fairly
> intense amount of passion, at least on her side, and even hint at some
> form of physical relationship already existing. It's a love letter by
> proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of
> Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a
> point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we
> also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to
> tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry
> his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart .
> Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the
> historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous -
> love story was being enacted during these months?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter



> Oh, he was probably tippling with the hippocras, lol!

That's an excellent point. Seriously. Given that von Poppelau was
swaggering about challenging people to lift his enormous lance, it wouldn't
be at all surprising if he challenged every bloke he met to outdrink him,
too. Hospitality would certainly have been laid on. It would suggest
Richard was quite a happy, enthusiastic drunk - and they do say drink's in,
truth's out, i.e. the you you are when you're drunk is the real you.

Ah well, as they say, drink is a good man's failing! Can you tell me where to find more excerpts from Von Poppelau's report? I only have Kendall's account and that is pretty brief. I've always liked Mr. Von Poppelau! Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
>
> > Oh, he was probably tippling with the hippocras, lol!
>
> That's an excellent point. Seriously. Given that von Poppelau was
> swaggering about challenging people to lift his enormous lance, it wouldn't
> be at all surprising if he challenged every bloke he met to outdrink him,
> too. Hospitality would certainly have been laid on. It would suggest
> Richard was quite a happy, enthusiastic drunk - and they do say drink's in,
> truth's out, i.e. the you you are when you're drunk is the real you.
>

Angelalice75 wrote:
> "Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir): [snip]

> Doug here:
> The problem is that the first line "...here is Buck's summary", doesn't match the last sentence "And all these be her own words...". [snip]


Carol responds:

If Weir called it a summary, she's clearly confusing a summary with a paraphrase. (Suppresses the impulse to say unkind things about Weir.)

Carol

Pansy( I hope that does not sound nasty) , I like your version way more than Virgil's!!!


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

On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:32 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> You know, there's one thing in particular that rubs me the wrong way about the 'Richard was planning to replace Anne' scenario.
>
> Edward died in April 1484. After the first shock had passed, they must both have been painfully aware that he desperately needed a new heir and that she wouldn't be able to give him one. He really *should* have started thinking about the possibility of annulment and replacing her with new breeding stock. It was the only option, surely, however painful.
>
> But what does he do instead? In July 1484, he makes those incredibly lavish grants of lands to the Queen's College, in consideration of his wife. Wasn't the condition of all these grants that Anne would be considered one of the founders of the college, just as Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville had been? And hadn't they already given plenty to the Queen's College? Why make such an impressive public gesture of generosity, and why that particular timing?
>
> In other words, you're cementing your wife's public profile as your Queen just as you're making devious plans to get rid of her. Makes sense! (Or not.)
>
> Seriously, *how* do you explain this? I can't interpret it any other way except as a gesture of loyalty to Anne.
>
>

Just to say we need to be careful. not only does the letter not survive, but Buck didn't take it down verbatim. In his drafts he fiddled with the wording a lot, critically moving the words "to the king" so that it went from "be a mediator for her to the king in the cause of the marriage" to "be a mediator for her in the cause of the marriage to the King". It only requires the addition of a couple of words that weren't in the original letter to change it from a sycophantic epistle asking Norfolk to nudge Richard about the Portuguese match to a proxy love letter to Richard himself.
Marie

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly
> just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see
> what others think.
> Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
> "When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
> desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter
> to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in
> whom she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved
> him, and that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king
> his brother, then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King
> Edward's children. She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for
> her in the cause of the marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her
> only joy and maker in this world, and that she was his in heart and in
> thought, in body and in all. And then she intimated that the better part
> of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.
> And all these be her own words, written with her own hand, and this is
> the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen the autograph or original
> draft under her own hand..."
> The wording is pretty intense, and seems to suggest this isn't just some
> political union being discussed. The words "his in heart and in thought,
> in body and in all" if actually used by Elizabeth, imply a fairly
> intense amount of passion, at least on her side, and even hint at some
> form of physical relationship already existing. It's a love letter by
> proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of
> Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a
> point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we
> also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to
> tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry
> his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart .
> Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the
> historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous -
> love story was being enacted during these months?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The rumour, according to Crowland, started after people saw the favour shown to Elizabeth at the Christmas celebrations. Personally I suspect that this rumour, and the one that Anne was being poisoned, and probably other nasty ideas, were spread as part of a propaganda campaign to prepare the way for Henry Tudors invasion, which had just been timetabled for the following summer. Even Crowland's account places the rumours as the items immediately following the news that Henry Tudor planned to invade.
Marie


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I think I have posed this question once today but here I go again: what gave rise to this rumor at all? Lets ignore the said letter for now and just focus on the contemporary sources...... I find it strangely disturbing that such a rumor surfaced at all.
> Also, books were extremely expensive at those times. For Richard to have given them to Elizabeth shows a degree of friendship and intimacy between them. Did that " friendship" led to the rumors? And made E of Y think that he felt more for her than he actually did?
> I wonder what Alison Weir's " proof" will be........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:54 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see what others think.
> > > [snip]It's a love letter by proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> > > If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart . Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous - love story was being enacted during these months?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Whatever Elizabeth's feelings on the matter, it would have been political suicide for Richard to contemplate a marriage to the niece who had officially declared illegitimate in the same document that declared her brothers to be ineligible for the throne. He would not have needed Catesby and Ratcliffe (whom the chronicler makes out to be so powerful that they can intimidate the king) to tell him that such a marriage would alienate his Northern supporters 0or that Elizabeth might want to take revenge for the deaths of her uncle and half-brother--no mention, interestingly, of the deaths of her two younger brothers). He would have seen much greater difficulties in not only the opprobrium he would face by marrying his niece but the necessity to legitimize her, which at the same time would legitimize her brothers, making a mockery of his own claim whether they were dead or alive. It's quite clear that the Croyland chronicler by this time either had no contact with the court or was in such a subordinate position that he did not know what was really going on--preparations for negotiations with both Portugal and Spain for possible marriage treaties.
> >
> > As for Richard having an affair with his own niece, that could only happen if he were the liar and hypocrite that Tudor propaganda makes him. And not even Croyland or the Tudor sources speak of an affair, only a contemplated marriage, whose only purpose would be to prevent Henry Tudor from marrying Elizabeth--hardly sufficient reason to make a marriage that could not possibly benefit him politically or monetarily.
> >
> > In other words, if the letter is real and Buck has interpreted it correctly, it is simply the desperate of a teenage girl whose betrothals have been repeatedly thwarted and who now finds herself a king's bastard instead of a princess. Maybe she hoped for what we would now call a fairytale ending, marrying the king and becoming the queen. (She eventually got that wish, but not in the form she wanted. Be careful what you wish for, Elizabeth.)
> >
> > At an rate, the evidence that Richard ever considered such a marriage is nonexistent. He denied it publicly and at the same time publicly expressed his deep sadness for his wife's death. We have only buck's letter and a few signatures on books that her uncle apparently gave her to indicate Elizabeth's feelings. We have Richard's own statement in the Mercer's records to indicate his.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Sorry, and I meant to add there there is no proof that Richard gave Elizabeth these books. The books that he had owned became the property of Henry VII after Bosworth and were distributed around his family. On the other hand, he could have given them to her, or Queen Anne could have asked him to (Crowland's description of the Christmas festivities gives the impression that Elizabeth was now one of her attendants).
Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I think I have posed this question once today but here I go again: what gave rise to this rumor at all? Lets ignore the said letter for now and just focus on the contemporary sources...... I find it strangely disturbing that such a rumor surfaced at all.
> Also, books were extremely expensive at those times. For Richard to have given them to Elizabeth shows a degree of friendship and intimacy between them. Did that " friendship" led to the rumors? And made E of Y think that he felt more for her than he actually did?
> I wonder what Alison Weir's " proof" will be........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:54 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see what others think.
> > > [snip]It's a love letter by proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> > > If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart . Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous - love story was being enacted during these months?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Whatever Elizabeth's feelings on the matter, it would have been political suicide for Richard to contemplate a marriage to the niece who had officially declared illegitimate in the same document that declared her brothers to be ineligible for the throne. He would not have needed Catesby and Ratcliffe (whom the chronicler makes out to be so powerful that they can intimidate the king) to tell him that such a marriage would alienate his Northern supporters 0or that Elizabeth might want to take revenge for the deaths of her uncle and half-brother--no mention, interestingly, of the deaths of her two younger brothers). He would have seen much greater difficulties in not only the opprobrium he would face by marrying his niece but the necessity to legitimize her, which at the same time would legitimize her brothers, making a mockery of his own claim whether they were dead or alive. It's quite clear that the Croyland chronicler by this time either had no contact with the court or was in such a subordinate position that he did not know what was really going on--preparations for negotiations with both Portugal and Spain for possible marriage treaties.
> >
> > As for Richard having an affair with his own niece, that could only happen if he were the liar and hypocrite that Tudor propaganda makes him. And not even Croyland or the Tudor sources speak of an affair, only a contemplated marriage, whose only purpose would be to prevent Henry Tudor from marrying Elizabeth--hardly sufficient reason to make a marriage that could not possibly benefit him politically or monetarily.
> >
> > In other words, if the letter is real and Buck has interpreted it correctly, it is simply the desperate of a teenage girl whose betrothals have been repeatedly thwarted and who now finds herself a king's bastard instead of a princess. Maybe she hoped for what we would now call a fairytale ending, marrying the king and becoming the queen. (She eventually got that wish, but not in the form she wanted. Be careful what you wish for, Elizabeth.)
> >
> > At an rate, the evidence that Richard ever considered such a marriage is nonexistent. He denied it publicly and at the same time publicly expressed his deep sadness for his wife's death. We have only buck's letter and a few signatures on books that her uncle apparently gave her to indicate Elizabeth's feelings. We have Richard's own statement in the Mercer's records to indicate his.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I agree. I made this point n my 2007 article about Crowland's asseerrion that he considered divorcing Anne to marry Elizabeth: ie that his motive for divorcing Anne arose in April 1484, not after Christmas, and that after Christmas she took ill and so he wouldn't have needed to divorce her.
Marie

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> You know, there's one thing in particular that rubs me the wrong way about the 'Richard was planning to replace Anne' scenario.
>
> Edward died in April 1484. After the first shock had passed, they must both have been painfully aware that he desperately needed a new heir and that she wouldn't be able to give him one. He really *should* have started thinking about the possibility of annulment and replacing her with new breeding stock. It was the only option, surely, however painful.
>
> But what does he do instead? In July 1484, he makes those incredibly lavish grants of lands to the Queen's College, in consideration of his wife. Wasn't the condition of all these grants that Anne would be considered one of the founders of the college, just as Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville had been? And hadn't they already given plenty to the Queen's College? Why make such an impressive public gesture of generosity, and why that particular timing?
>
> In other words, you're cementing your wife's public profile as your Queen just as you're making devious plans to get rid of her. Makes sense! (Or not.)
>
> Seriously, *how* do you explain this? I can't interpret it any other way except as a gesture of loyalty to Anne.
>

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
his."

Doug here:
Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
"letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
King of England.
As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
right there!
The exact quote from the summary is:
"And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
she feared the Queen would never die."
Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
to the "everybody knows" virus.
Doug

Possibly Elizabeth was getting a bit inpatient with the time the Queen was taking to die because she wanted the Portuguese marriage to take place...Yes...I know...it does not paint her in a very nice light does it?...but she was very young...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
> "True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
> liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
> queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
> would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
> were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
> and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
> his."
>
> Doug here:
> Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
> phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
> all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
> "letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
> marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
> show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
> responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
> King of England.
> As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
> how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
> much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
> include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
> a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
> right there!
> The exact quote from the summary is:
> "And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
> she feared the Queen would never die."
> Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
> interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
> handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
> clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
> the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
> who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
> not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
> Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
> Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
> I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
> being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
> it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
> Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
> thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
> because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
> reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
> to the "everybody knows" virus.
> Doug
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter

> As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
right there!

Teenager, though.

> The exact quote from the summary is:
"And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
she feared the Queen would never die."
Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase.

Unelpfully, Collins' lists two verbal meanings of intimate - "to hint,
suggest" and "to proclaim, make known". We need somebody with access to the
full Oxford to say which meaning is older.

Incidentally, why is the story about the Countess of Desmond dancing with
Richard dismissed? She couldn't have been the one who was Countess when
Richard was alive, she'd have to be one of the successors, but if she danced
with Richard as a child she could have spoken with Buck or an associate when
Buck was a child or youth, and she was in her nineties. Has the story been
tarred with the same brush as the discredited claim that there was a Cuntess
of Desmond who was 140, which resulted from three or four countesses being
conflated?

The letter could be as you describe and I certainly think that Elizabeth was asking Norfolk to speed things along in the matter of her marriage to the Portugese Prince. Is it possible that the rumour about Richard marrying Eof Y came from EW? She would have been desperate to gain some sort of power. As things stood if Elizabeth married the Portugese Prince EW would have been in England while Elizabeth would have been in Portugal and while her position would have been greatly improved EW would still have been the damaged mother of Edward's illegitimate children. How much better if she could be the mother of the Queen of England. I don't think there was any truth in the rumour because, as someone else has said in another post, why would Richard want to marry his illegimate niece when he would have to legitimate all her brothers and sisters to be able to legitimate her.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
> "True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
> liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
> queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
> would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
> were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
> and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
> his."
>
> Doug here:
> Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
> phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
> all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
> "letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
> marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
> show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
> responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
> King of England.
> As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
> how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
> much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
> include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
> a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
> right there!
> The exact quote from the summary is:
> "And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
> she feared the Queen would never die."
> Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
> interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
> handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
> clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
> the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
> who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
> not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
> Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
> Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
> I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
> being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
> it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
> Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
> thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
> because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
> reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
> to the "everybody knows" virus.
> Doug
>

But was not EW involved in plotting with MB for the marriage of their offspring...I was under the belief that this plot was hatched while EW was in the Westminster Abbey sanctuary...Did EW do an about face on Plan A for Plan B...i.e. for her daughter to marry Weasle....I suppose if she kept both Plans/plots on the go she would eventually be in a win win situation...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Is it possible that the rumour about Richard marrying Eof Y came from EW? She would have been desperate to gain some sort of power. As things stood if Elizabeth married the Portugese Prince EW would have been in England while Elizabeth would have been in Portugal and while her position would have been greatly improved EW would still have been the damaged mother of Edward's illegitimate children. How much better if she could be the mother of the Queen of England. I don't think there was any truth in the rumour because, as someone else has said in another post, why would Richard want to marry his illegimate niece when he would have to legitimate all her brothers and sisters to be able to legitimate her.
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Claire M Jordan wrote:
> >
> > "True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
> > liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
> > queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
> > would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
> > were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
> > and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
> > his."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
> > phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
> > all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
> > "letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
> > marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
> > show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
> > responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
> > King of England.
> > As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
> > how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
> > much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
> > include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
> > a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
> > right there!
> > The exact quote from the summary is:
> > "And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
> > she feared the Queen would never die."
> > Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
> > interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
> > handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
> > clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
> > the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
> > who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
> > not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
> > Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
> > Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
> > I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
> > being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
> > it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
> > Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
> > thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
> > because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
> > reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
> > to the "everybody knows" virus.
> > Doug
> >
>

He did that DELIBERATELY? Where is that so-and-so buried? I am going to have to dig him up and slap him around some for that!

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Just to say we need to be careful. not only does the letter not survive, but Buck didn't take it down verbatim. In his drafts he fiddled with the wording a lot, critically moving the words "to the king" so that it went from "be a mediator for her to the king in the cause of the marriage" to "be a mediator for her in the cause of the marriage to the King". It only requires the addition of a couple of words that weren't in the original letter to change it from a sycophantic epistle asking Norfolk to nudge Richard about the Portuguese match to a proxy love letter to Richard himself.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought I'd post something about the (in)famous Buck letter, partly
> > just to assist in getting my own thoughts straight, and partly to see
> > what others think.
> > Firstly here is Buck's summary (as quoted by Weir):
> > "When the days of February were gone, the Lady Elizabeth, being very
> > desirous to be married and growing impatient of delays, wrote a letter
> > to John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, intimating first that he was the one in
> > whom she most affied, because she knew the King her father much loved
> > him, and that he was a very faithful servant unto him and to the king
> > his brother, then reigning, and very loving and serviceable to King
> > Edward's children. She prayed him, as before, to be a mediator for
> > her in the cause of the marriage to the King, who, as she wrote, was her
> > only joy and maker in this world, and that she was his in heart and in
> > thought, in body and in all. And then she intimated that the better part
> > of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.
> > And all these be her own words, written with her own hand, and this is
> > the sum of her letter, whereof I have seen the autograph or original
> > draft under her own hand..."
> > The wording is pretty intense, and seems to suggest this isn't just some
> > political union being discussed. The words "his in heart and in thought,
> > in body and in all" if actually used by Elizabeth, imply a fairly
> > intense amount of passion, at least on her side, and even hint at some
> > form of physical relationship already existing. It's a love letter by
> > proxy basically. And of course it offers rather good confirmation of
> > Croyland's claim that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth, not simply as a
> > point of statecraft, but because he conceived a passion for her.
> > If (and it's a big 'if') we accept this letter as genuine then do we
> > also have to accept Croyland on this point, since they do both seem to
> > tell a similar story? If so, then Richard's denials of intent to marry
> > his niece were either lies or represented a change of heart .
> > Looking at this letter, and at Croyland, can it be that for once the
> > historical novelists have it right, and a genuine - if incestuous -
> > love story was being enacted during these months?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> He did that DELIBERATELY? Where is that so-and-so buried? I am going to
> have to dig him up and slap him around some for that!

Or he just couldn't read his own notes and was trying to reconstruct what
he'd seen from memory.

Hard to know, Eileen. That is the Tudor version of events. For a different take on it, read Annette's 'Maligned King'.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> But was not EW involved in plotting with MB for the marriage of their offspring...I was under the belief that this plot was hatched while EW was in the Westminster Abbey sanctuary...Did EW do an about face on Plan A for Plan B...i.e. for her daughter to marry Weasle....I suppose if she kept both Plans/plots on the go she would eventually be in a win win situation...Eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible that the rumour about Richard marrying Eof Y came from EW? She would have been desperate to gain some sort of power. As things stood if Elizabeth married the Portugese Prince EW would have been in England while Elizabeth would have been in Portugal and while her position would have been greatly improved EW would still have been the damaged mother of Edward's illegitimate children. How much better if she could be the mother of the Queen of England. I don't think there was any truth in the rumour because, as someone else has said in another post, why would Richard want to marry his illegimate niece when he would have to legitimate all her brothers and sisters to be able to legitimate her.
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Claire M Jordan wrote:
> > >
> > > "True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
> > > liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
> > > queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
> > > would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
> > > were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
> > > and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
> > > his."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
> > > phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
> > > all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
> > > "letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
> > > marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
> > > show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
> > > responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
> > > King of England.
> > > As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
> > > how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
> > > much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
> > > include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
> > > a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
> > > right there!
> > > The exact quote from the summary is:
> > > "And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
> > > she feared the Queen would never die."
> > > Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
> > > interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
> > > handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
> > > clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
> > > the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
> > > who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
> > > not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
> > > Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
> > > Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
> > > I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
> > > being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
> > > it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
> > > Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
> > > thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
> > > because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
> > > reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
> > > to the "everybody knows" virus.
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>

Probably keeping all her options open. Didn't she arrange the marriage with the Weasel quite early on, end of 1483/ early 1484? By the time that Ann died she might have had a change of heart because his first attempt at invading had failed she might have thought that Richard was a better option. Quite frankly I wouldn't put anything past EW or MB.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> But was not EW involved in plotting with MB for the marriage of their offspring...I was under the belief that this plot was hatched while EW was in the Westminster Abbey sanctuary...Did EW do an about face on Plan A for Plan B...i.e. for her daughter to marry Weasle....I suppose if she kept both Plans/plots on the go she would eventually be in a win win situation...Eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible that the rumour about Richard marrying Eof Y came from EW? She would have been desperate to gain some sort of power. As things stood if Elizabeth married the Portugese Prince EW would have been in England while Elizabeth would have been in Portugal and while her position would have been greatly improved EW would still have been the damaged mother of Edward's illegitimate children. How much better if she could be the mother of the Queen of England. I don't think there was any truth in the rumour because, as someone else has said in another post, why would Richard want to marry his illegimate niece when he would have to legitimate all her brothers and sisters to be able to legitimate her.
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Claire M Jordan wrote:
> > >
> > > "True - it's possible "his in body" is a flowery way of saying "he is my
> > > liege lord and I am his to command". But why would she say she thought the
> > > queen would never die - unless it was just a passing observation. If so, it
> > > would be a massive non sequiter. And we know that there *was* a rumour they
> > > were going to marry, so strong that Richard felt he had to publicly deny it,
> > > and I'd rather think it was her behaviour which occasioned the gossip than
> > > his."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Personally, I'd go beyond "flowery" but, yes, that's what I think those
> > > phraes were - over-effusive declarations of her loyalty to Richard. After
> > > all, it was Richard who had the final say on who Elizabeth would marry. Her
> > > "letter" comes across to me as that of someone who wants something (the
> > > marriage) and is trying to speed things along. I think she was trying to
> > > show that what SHE wanted was perfectly in alignment with her duties and
> > > responsibilities to Richard - her guardian, her uncle and, most importantly,
> > > King of England.
> > > As for the "Queen will never die" bit; well, I'm very sceptical. No matter
> > > how kindly Norfolk had treated Elizabeth and her siblings, no matter how
> > > much Edward IV had trusted him, Norfolk was a loyal follower of Richard. To
> > > include such a sentence, so starkly phrased, in a letter to him, especially
> > > a letter asking for Norfolk's help, would have negated Elizabeth's efforts
> > > right there!
> > > The exact quote from the summary is:
> > > "And then she intimated that the better part of February was past, and that
> > > she feared the Queen would never die."
> > > Buck's use of the word "intimated" says to me that what follows is HIS
> > > interpretation of what Elizabeth actually wrote. I don't have a dictionary
> > > handy, but I've always understood "intimated" to mean not saying something
> > > clearly or to hint at. So, unless "intimated" meant something different in
> > > the early 17th century than it does now, that says to me that it was BUCK
> > > who interpreted what Elizabeth wrote as meaning "the Queen would never die";
> > > not that Elizabeth actually wrote that phrase. Not nearly as interesting as
> > > Elizabeth panting in anticipation for her aunt to die so she could become
> > > Richard's next Queen, I'll admit.
> > > I also wonder if Buck didn't misinterpret the reason for the letter's NOT
> > > being broadcast far and wide, It was closely held in the family, NOT because
> > > it showed Elizabeth trying to marry her uncle, but because it DIDN'T show
> > > Elizabeth being repulsed, angry, whatever at Richard. Certainly not a good
> > > thing under the Tudors. Look what happened to Elizabeth's mother - shut up
> > > because she was "nice" to Richard! And no, I don't believe that was the real
> > > reason, but it WAS widespread and I imagine even the nobility could succumb
> > > to the "everybody knows" virus.
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>

[Putting shovel away.] A charitable assessment. Buck stays where is is for now. Unslapped.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > He did that DELIBERATELY? Where is that so-and-so buried? I am going to
> > have to dig him up and slap him around some for that!
>
> Or he just couldn't read his own notes and was trying to reconstruct what
> he'd seen from memory.
>

Mary wrote:
>
> Probably keeping all her options open. Didn't she arrange the marriage with the Weasel quite early on, end of 1483/ early 1484? By the time that Ann died she might have had a change of heart because his first attempt at invading had failed she might have thought that Richard was a better option. Quite frankly I wouldn't put anything past EW or MB.

Carol responds;

In other words, the agreement occurred while EW was still in sanctuary (she didn't come out until March 1484, IIRC) and the conspiring could only have been done through a go-between like Dr. Lewis. (MB was also still under house arrest under the supposed supervision of her husband, Lord Stanley, but clearly she was free to write and send messages.)

Is it possible that at this time EW thought that her sons were dead, but she came out of sanctuary and stopped plotting with MB once she received proof from Richard that they were alive? Or maybe there was no MB/EW conspiracy and Henry or Morton sent for that dispensation as a ploy, part of the same propaganda move that included spreading the rumor that the boys were dead as a way of inspiring the disaffected Yorkists to join his cause.

Without pro-Richard sources, it's very hard to get past the Tudor view of events as presented even, to some degree, in the Croyland Chronicle.

Guess I need to refresh my memory regarding what Annette said in "The Maligned King."

Carol

Claire M Jordan wrote:
//snip//
"Incidentally, why is the story about the Countess of Desmond dancing with
Richard dismissed? She couldn't have been the one who was Countess when
Richard was alive, she'd have to be one of the successors, but if she danced
with Richard as a child she could have spoken with Buck or an associate when
Buck was a child or youth, and she was in her nineties. Has the story been
tarred with the same brush as the discredited claim that there was a Cuntess
of Desmond who was 140, which resulted from three or four countesses being
conflated?"

Doug here:
The 140-year-old/dancing Countess does seem to have been a conflation. There
was a thread earlier about just that and the consensus was, I believe, that
the Countess of Desmond who may have danced with Richard wasn't the one who
told the story to Buck. As both Edward IV and Richard were at the
party/celebration that would place the event to well before 1485, which
suggests that whichever Countess WAS there was born no later than 1470.
Adding 140 to 1470 and we get 1610, which leads me to think there was either
an error in Buck's notes or someone misread what Buck DID write down.
Which seems to happen to about everything connected to Richard...
Doug

ricard1an wrote:

"The letter could be as you describe and I certainly think that Elizabeth
was asking Norfolk to speed things along in the matter of her marriage to
the Portugese Prince. Is it possible that the rumour about Richard marrying
Eof Y came from EW? She would have been desperate to gain some sort of
power. As things stood if Elizabeth married the Portugese Prince EW would
have been in England while Elizabeth would have been in Portugal and while
her position would have been greatly improved EW would still have been the
damaged mother of Edward's illegitimate children. How much better if she
could be the mother of the Queen of England. I don't think there was any
truth in the rumour because, as someone else has said in another post, why
would Richard want to marry his illegimate niece when he would have to
legitimate all her brothers and sisters to be able to legitimate her."

Doug here:
I tend to think that what happened was that word about the proposed
Portugese weddings got out, most likely from someone overhearing a scrap of
conversation about the marriage"S". I capitalized that "S" because I believe
it WAS there in the original, overheard conversation and got dropped at some
later point when the conversation was repeated. Thus, "Richard is proposing
marriages FOR Elizabeth and himself" became "Richard is proposing a marriage
OF Elizabeth and himself".
Whether omitting that "s" was deliberate or not, I don't know. It certainly
wouldn't have to be, as there are plenty of people who, then as now, just
love juicy little tidbits of gossip - especially when they appear to show
someone in a bad light.
I don't see EW being involved at all. For one thing, I don't think she was
even at Court and something such as trying to get one's daughter married to
the King isn't something easily accomplished by the post! Then add in the
facts that the girl in question was the King's niece AND illegitimate as
further bars to be hurdled and it just becomes, to me at least, an
overwhelming task.
Which is not to say that EW would necessarily have objected had Richard
married Elizabeth; but that's entirely different matter than actually trying
to accomplish it.
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> Doug here:
The 140-year-old/dancing Countess does seem to have been a conflation. There
was a thread earlier about just that and the consensus was, I believe, that
the Countess of Desmond who may have danced with Richard wasn't the one who
told the story to Buck. As both Edward IV and Richard were at the
party/celebration that would place the event to well before 1485, which
suggests that whichever Countess WAS there was born no later than 1470.

Not if she was a child, and he was enjoying the chance to play Gracious
Older Brother for a change. It does say she was a young girl at the time -
she could have been born as late as 1475, and danced with him when she was
seven.

> Adding 140 to 1470 and we get 1610, which leads me to think there was
> either
an error in Buck's notes or someone misread what Buck DID write down.

Does Buck actually say what year he spoke to her, as opposed to when he
thinks she (or *a* Countess of Desmond) died? If she was born in 1475 she
would have been a hundred when he was fifteen, so he could easily have
spoken to her when he was, say, twelve.

Although unlikely, it's not actually impossible that she lived to 140
anyway. We know it's possible to live to 122! There are reports of people
in the Urals living into their 140s, and the same is reported of Karni Mater
(Mother Karni), a north Indian religieuse and military and political
strategist who was contemporary with Richard, and wasn't likely to be
conflated with anybody else. It's generally the case with mammals that the
maximum lifespan is around twice the normal lifespan, so ferex the oldest
known horse was 62, the oldest cat 36. [The exception is the Norway rat
where the oldest known individual was more than three times the normal
lifespan.]

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> Doug here:
I tend to think that what happened was that word about the proposed
Portugese weddings got out, most likely from someone overhearing a scrap of
conversation about the marriage"S".

It's occurred to me that the bit about fearing the queen would never die
could mean that Richard was wholely wrapped up in attending to his sick
wife, and Elizabeth felt that until Ann either died or got better Richard
wasn't going to pay any attention to her concerns. Maybe the messenger who
conveyed the message gossiped about it and it was taken the wrong way.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> Does Buck actually say what year he spoke to her, as opposed to when he
> thinks she (or *a* Countess of Desmond) died? If she was born in 1475 she
> would have been a hundred when he was fifteen, so he could easily have
> spoken to her when he was, say, twelve.


I thought the Super Old Countess was supposed to have died in 1604/1605? Fell from a tree. (Let me digest that for a minute... nope, it still doesn't sound any less incredible. 100+-year-old countess. Doesn't succumb to pneumonia or heart failure; instead, falls from a tree.)

Now that's the kind of old woman that I hope to be. ;O)

Seriously, how have I missed that detail all these years.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:

>
>
> I thought the Super Old Countess was supposed to have died in 1604/1605? Fell from a tree. (Let me digest that for a minute... nope, it still doesn't sound any less incredible. 100+-year-old countess. Doesn't succumb to pneumonia or heart failure; instead, falls from a tree.)
>

--- In , "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
> Now that's the kind of old woman that I hope to be. ;O)
>
> Seriously, how have I missed that detail all these years.
>

Mind you, it's probably just a legend ;) But I'd like to think it was true. Certainly she must have been in an astonishingly good physical condition for her age, just to keep on living so long in those times. (And on... and on...)

Although, if we go by the rule that there's a grain of truth in every strange rumour, perhaps the *tree* fell on *her*...

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter

> It's occurred to me that the bit about fearing the queen would never die
could mean that Richard was wholely wrapped up in attending to his sick
wife, and Elizabeth felt that until Ann either died or got better Richard
wasn't going to pay any attention to her concerns. Maybe the messenger who
conveyed the message gossiped about it and it was taken the wrong way.

Another thought: if Ann and Elizabeth were friends, and Ann was obviously in
pain and not going to get better, the comment about fearing she would never
die could have been kind rather than nasty. In that case, there wouldn't be
any issues of treason.

pansydobersby wrote:
>

> Mind you, it's probably just a legend ;) But I'd like to think it was true. Certainly she must have been in an astonishingly good physical condition for her age, just to keep on living so long in those times. (And on... and on...)
>
> Although, if we go by the rule that there's a grain of truth in every strange rumour, perhaps the *tree* fell on *her*...

Carol responds:

If anyone wants to read our earlier thread on the subject (and I know how hard it is to follow a thread on Yahoo), here are the main posts in the thread in chronological order:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24536

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24594

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24606

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24674

There are other posts in the thread, which you can find if you're interested, but these are the main ones.

Carol

[Nodding sagely.] Dancing from a young age. Builds up the muscles.

I prefer, as long as we are talking legend, to believe that the lady, in her maturity, punched the tree so mightily with her dance-hardened fist that it fell on her.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@> wrote:
> >
> > Now that's the kind of old woman that I hope to be. ;O)
> >
> > Seriously, how have I missed that detail all these years.
> >
>
> Mind you, it's probably just a legend ;) But I'd like to think it was true. Certainly she must have been in an astonishingly good physical condition for her age, just to keep on living so long in those times. (And on... and on...)
>
> Although, if we go by the rule that there's a grain of truth in every strange rumour, perhaps the *tree* fell on *her*...
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter

> I prefer, as long as we are talking legend, to believe that the lady, in
> her maturity, punched the tree so mightily with her dance-hardened fist
> that it fell on her.

It might, of course, be a variant of the expression "She fell off her
perch" - I wonder how old that is?

I'm with you - why did I ever mention this?  H 


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 

[Nodding sagely.] Dancing from a young age. Builds up the muscles.

I prefer, as long as we are talking legend, to believe that the lady, in her maturity, punched the tree so mightily with her dance-hardened fist that it fell on her.

--- In , pansydobersby wrote:
>
> --- In , "Katherine" wrote:
> >
> > Now that's the kind of old woman that I hope to be. ;O)
> >
> > Seriously, how have I missed that detail all these years.
> >
>
> Mind you, it's probably just a legend ;) But I'd like to think it was true. Certainly she must have been in an astonishingly good physical condition for her age, just to keep on living so long in those times. (And on... and on...)
>
> Although, if we go by the rule that there's a grain of truth in every strange rumour, perhaps the *tree* fell on *her*...
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:17 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
> > I prefer, as long as we are talking legend, to believe that the lady, in
> > her maturity, punched the tree so mightily with her dance-hardened fist
> > that it fell on her.
>
> It might, of course, be a variant of the expression "She fell off her
> perch" - I wonder how old that is?
>

I think the story was that the old Countess was gathering nuts and fell off the tree.

Unless, of course, 'gathering nuts' was some kind of a sordid euphemism I do NOT wish to know about...

Look, these stories about the Countess of Desmond come across to me as a prime and hilarious example of the ancient and venerable Irish pastime of "codding" the simple English tourist (and I say this as being mostly Irish myself).
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
> >
>
> > Mind you, it's probably just a legend ;) But I'd like to think it was true. Certainly she must have been in an astonishingly good physical condition for her age, just to keep on living so long in those times. (And on... and on...)
> >
> > Although, if we go by the rule that there's a grain of truth in every strange rumour, perhaps the *tree* fell on *her*...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If anyone wants to read our earlier thread on the subject (and I know how hard it is to follow a thread on Yahoo), here are the main posts in the thread in chronological order:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24536
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24594
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24606
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24674
>
> There are other posts in the thread, which you can find if you're interested, but these are the main ones.
>
> Carol
>

I think the question of whether Richard was intending to replace Anne before her death is a separate one from whether he had some sort of intentions towards his niece. Obviously they are connected, but they are also distinct.

When we look at the question of his marriage to Anne we have to be very careful to wear our Medieval goggles. We can't address it as if it were a question of a 21st marriage between two private people.

To the medieval mind a king's marriage was a matter both of state and of Godly duty. A king had an absolute, religious obligation to procreate, produce an heir to ensure safe and peaceful succession. Failure to do that was a failure of his duty.

And I think everything we know about Richard tells us he would have been more than aware of his duty, to his own blood and to the country. If he died without a direct heir he might leave the country on the brink of another civil war. Even more than most medieval kings he must have known the urgency of producing a son.

So, I think we need to see the rumours about him thinking of replacing her in this context - not as an indication of a cold and cruel man, but as an indication of a king who is forced to at least consider such an option when his wife is barren and his only legitimate son is dead.

How much the situation of Anne's barrenness has to do with the rumours about Elizabeth of York is of course another question :)




--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> You know, there's one thing in particular that rubs me the wrong way about the 'Richard was planning to replace Anne' scenario.
>
> Edward died in April 1484. After the first shock had passed, they must both have been painfully aware that he desperately needed a new heir and that she wouldn't be able to give him one. He really *should* have started thinking about the possibility of annulment and replacing her with new breeding stock. It was the only option, surely, however painful.
>
> But what does he do instead? In July 1484, he makes those incredibly lavish grants of lands to the Queen's College, in consideration of his wife. Wasn't the condition of all these grants that Anne would be considered one of the founders of the college, just as Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville had been? And hadn't they already given plenty to the Queen's College? Why make such an impressive public gesture of generosity, and why that particular timing?
>
> In other words, you're cementing your wife's public profile as your Queen just as you're making devious plans to get rid of her. Makes sense! (Or not.)
>
> Seriously, *how* do you explain this? I can't interpret it any other way except as a gesture of loyalty to Anne.
>

-Regarding it just being a one-sided crush of Elizabeth's, Croyland does
specifically say, or at least suggests, that Richard had conceived "an
incestuous passion for his said niece":
---"The king's purpose and intention of contracting a marriage with his
niece Elizabeth being mentioned to some who were opposed thereto, the
king was obliged, having called a council together, to excuse himself
with many words and to assert that such a thing had never once entered
his mind. There were some persons, however, present at that same
council, who very well knew the contrary. Those in especial who were
unwilling that this marriage should take place, and to whose opinions
the king hardly ever dared offer any opposition, were Sir Richard
Ratclyffe and William Catesby, Esquire of his body. For by these persons
the king was told to his face that if he did not abandon his intended
purpose, and that, too, before the mayor and commons of the city of
London, oppostion would not be offered to him merely by the warnings of
the voice; for all the people of the north, in whom he placed the
greatest reliance, would rise in rebellion against him, and impute to
him the death of the queen, the daughter and one of the heirs of the
earl of Warwick, through whom he had first gained his present high
position; in order that he might, to the extreme abhorrence of the
Almighty, gratify an incestuous passion for his said niece."----
Neither Buck nor Croyland are totally reliable sources of course, but it
can easily be read that on this occasion they are confirming each other.
So, to that extent I think it's a plausible, and rational reading of
the evidence to conclude there is at least a possibility that at the
heart of this rumour was indeed a "passion".

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
> To the medieval mind a king's marriage was a matter both of state and of Godly duty. A king had an absolute, religious obligation to procreate, produce an heir to ensure safe and peaceful succession. Failure to do that was a failure of his duty.
>
> And I think everything we know about Richard tells us he would have been more than aware of his duty, to his own blood and to the country. If he died without a direct heir he might leave the country on the brink of another civil war. Even more than most medieval kings he must have known the urgency of producing a son.
>
> So, I think we need to see the rumours about him thinking of replacing her in this context - not as an indication of a cold and cruel man, but as an indication of a king who is forced to at least consider such an option when his wife is barren and his only legitimate son is dead.
>

Yes, I agree with all of the above, and it's what I meant, too - but this is also exactly why I find the Queen's College grants puzzling, with their timing and lavishness.


> How much the situation of Anne's barrenness has to do with the rumours about Elizabeth of York is of course another question :)
>

I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...

Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or, or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.

But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.

I can understand basically decent people doing immoral things, believing the ends justify the means, but in this particular case, Richard would have had to sunk pretty low to consider such a marriage a good idea on ANY level.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> I can understand basically decent people doing immoral things, believing
> the ends justify the means, but in this particular case, Richard would
> have had to sunk pretty low to consider such a marriage a good idea on ANY
> level.

His apparent closeness to Ann, his reluctance to do anything nasty to MB or
to any woman and his strong injunction to the husbands of his relatives to
treat them well suggest a man who liked women a lot, and men who like women
a lot generally like a lot of women - not necessarily with any strong sexual
intent. He may have been one of those men who is automatically charming and
a bit flirtatious towards all women and it got misinterpreted - possibly by
young Elizabeth herself.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > I can understand basically decent people doing immoral things, believing
> > the ends justify the means, but in this particular case, Richard would
> > have had to sunk pretty low to consider such a marriage a good idea on ANY
> > level.
>
> His apparent closeness to Ann, his reluctance to do anything nasty to MB or
> to any woman and his strong injunction to the husbands of his relatives to
> treat them well suggest a man who liked women a lot, and men who like women
> a lot generally like a lot of women - not necessarily with any strong sexual
> intent. He may have been one of those men who is automatically charming and
> a bit flirtatious towards all women and it got misinterpreted - possibly by
> young Elizabeth herself.
>

Good point. Not to mention that his mother and sister Margaret were such strong characters, too. If anything, he had no reason NOT to respect women and to get along with them well.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:

> I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...
>
> Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or, or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.
>


Exactly so, and I'm wary of the temptation to make real people too "tidy" in their ethical and practical responses to things. We all know people can do unexpected things, crack under pressure, give in to temptation, take someone's stupid advice. And Richard *would* have been under huge pressure, both as man and as king at this point. His son was dead, his wife was dying, he was losing important psychological and emotional supports, probably feeling isolated, under heavy responsibility to act for the good of the realm and his "blood." . It might just be that marriage to Elizabeth seemed like a good idea for a while to a man who was possibly not seeing things as clearly as he might under more relaxed circumstances.

If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way, and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be unquestionably royal. Perhaps "passion' and other things swayed him for a while and he really thought it might be the best move, until his friends got hold of him and reminded him of the realities.

I can see this as being possible, even for a man of conscience, and don't think he should be judged harshly even if it were true.



> But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.
>

I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she
> might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way,
> and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might
> seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be
> unquestionably royal.

On the other hand, it would be a waste of the mariageable commodity which
both he and Elizabeth represented, since he would be marrying into an
illegitimate branch of his own family, rather than both of them forging
alliances with foreign princes by marrying wisely abroad.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she
> > might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way,
> > and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might
> > seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be
> > unquestionably royal.
>
> On the other hand, it would be a waste of the mariageable commodity which
> both he and Elizabeth represented, since he would be marrying into an
> illegitimate branch of his own family, rather than both of them forging
> alliances with foreign princes by marrying wisely abroad.
>


Absolutely. I'm not suggesting this is a sound POV, I'm just pointing out how it might have looked that way to Richard for a while. If he did indeed conceive a "passion" for Elizabeth as Croyland suggests then of course he'd see all the reasons why he *should* marry her and none of the reasons why it would be folly. That's just a universal trait of human nature.

Of course as soon as someone grabbed him by the proverbial lapels and said "you wanna marry your niece, are you freakin kiddin me?" then he might start to get a more realistic view. :)

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
> Exactly so, and I'm wary of the temptation to make real people too "tidy" in their ethical and practical responses to things. We all know people can do unexpected things, crack under pressure, give in to temptation, take someone's stupid advice. And Richard *would* have been under huge pressure, both as man and as king at this point. His son was dead, his wife was dying, he was losing important psychological and emotional supports, probably feeling isolated, under heavy responsibility to act for the good of the realm and his "blood." . It might just be that marriage to Elizabeth seemed like a good idea for a while to a man who was possibly not seeing things as clearly as he might under more relaxed circumstances.
>
> If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way, and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be unquestionably royal. Perhaps "passion' and other things swayed him for a while and he really thought it might be the best move, until his friends got hold of him and reminded him of the realities.
>
> I can see this as being possible, even for a man of conscience, and don't think he should be judged harshly even if it were true.
>

Yes, I can understand that (except for the 'unquestionably royal' part - Carol made a good point earlier how hypocritical such a match would have been, in regard to the Titulus Regius). Although, in light of everything else we do know (which, admittedly, isn't much), I must say such a scenario would make more sense and seem more likely to me *after* his wife was actually dead - and by then, as we know, he certainly didn't pursue the matter further.

I don't know. I, too, am wary of making people too 'tidy' in their ethical, practical AND emotional responses to things, but in this case, I'm particularly wary of believing the rumours because the only proof there is is (a) the existence of such rumours, and (b) a letter that only Buck has seen, possibly misinterpreted, and in any case doesn't say anything about Richard's own feelings (or actions!) regarding the matter.

I mean, I don't think it's merely romantic fantasy to think that Richard was - or at least very likely believed himself to be - motivated by loyalty, and matters of the heart also fall under the jurisdiction of said loyalty. And if it's romantic fantasy to think that he might have been loyal to Anne, then the contest is between romantic fantasy on one hand, and lascivious gossip on the other. Which is pretty much an impossible contest to resolve, really.

Quite - only one English King had ever had an annulment up to this stage, divorce being an impossibility.

----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter



--- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
>
>
> To the medieval mind a king's marriage was a matter both of state and of Godly duty. A king had an absolute, religious obligation to procreate, produce an heir to ensure safe and peaceful succession. Failure to do that was a failure of his duty.
>
> And I think everything we know about Richard tells us he would have been more than aware of his duty, to his own blood and to the country. If he died without a direct heir he might leave the country on the brink of another civil war. Even more than most medieval kings he must have known the urgency of producing a son.
>
> So, I think we need to see the rumours about him thinking of replacing her in this context - not as an indication of a cold and cruel man, but as an indication of a king who is forced to at least consider such an option when his wife is barren and his only legitimate son is dead.
>

Yes, I agree with all of the above, and it's what I meant, too - but this is also exactly why I find the Queen's College grants puzzling, with their timing and lavishness.

> How much the situation of Anne's barrenness has to do with the rumours about Elizabeth of York is of course another question :)
>

I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...

Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or, or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.

But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.

I can understand basically decent people doing immoral things, believing the ends justify the means, but in this particular case, Richard would have had to sunk pretty low to consider such a marriage a good idea on ANY level.

"I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of."

Such as ..........?

----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter





--- In , pansydobersby wrote:

> I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...
>
> Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or, or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.
>

Exactly so, and I'm wary of the temptation to make real people too "tidy" in their ethical and practical responses to things. We all know people can do unexpected things, crack under pressure, give in to temptation, take someone's stupid advice. And Richard *would* have been under huge pressure, both as man and as king at this point. His son was dead, his wife was dying, he was losing important psychological and emotional supports, probably feeling isolated, under heavy responsibility to act for the good of the realm and his "blood." . It might just be that marriage to Elizabeth seemed like a good idea for a while to a man who was possibly not seeing things as clearly as he might under more relaxed circumstances.

If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way, and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be unquestionably royal. Perhaps "passion' and other things swayed him for a while and he really thought it might be the best move, until his friends got hold of him and reminded him of the realities.

I can see this as being possible, even for a man of conscience, and don't think he should be judged harshly even if it were true.

> But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.
>

I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> Absolutely. I'm not suggesting this is a sound POV, I'm just pointing out
> how it might have looked that way to Richard for a while. If he did indeed
> conceive a "passion" for Elizabeth as Croyland suggests then of course
> he'd see all the reasons why he *should* marry her and none of the reasons
> why it would be folly. That's just a universal trait of human nature.

It's hard to believe that such an experienced soldier - i.e. someone used to
keeping his head and thinking on his feet - would take leave of his sense to
quite that extent, though. But he might well have made a *joke* about
marrying her - "Maybe *I* should bloody-well marry her then" - and somebody
took him seriously. Especially if his humour tended to the deadpan.

Yes and he could have married her off to anyone and she would be safe from the Tudor.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she
> > might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way,
> > and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might
> > seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be
> > unquestionably royal.
>
> On the other hand, it would be a waste of the mariageable commodity which
> both he and Elizabeth represented, since he would be marrying into an
> illegitimate branch of his own family, rather than both of them forging
> alliances with foreign princes by marrying wisely abroad.
>

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> Yes and he could have married her off to anyone and she would be safe from
> the Tudor.

Plus, it would have made Elizabeth Woodville his mother in law, which I
think is probably a clincher.

________________________________

pansydobersby  saidL

snip>
But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.
 
Liz:
Exactly!  Whatever Richard was, he wasn't a stupid man.    (I think the same with his failure to display the dead princes if he  had killed them by the way.  It would have been stupid.)     Even if he conceived a great passion for E of Y, he would have known exactly what it would mean to act upon it.   
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (49)
Recent Activity: * New Members 16 * New Photos 1 * New Files 2
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
 

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> It's hard to believe that such an experienced soldier - i.e. someone used to
> keeping his head and thinking on his feet - would take leave of his sense to
> quite that extent, though. But he might well have made a *joke* about
> marrying her - "Maybe *I* should bloody-well marry her then" - and somebody
> took him seriously. Especially if his humour tended to the deadpan.
>


I don't think we can make such an assumption. People are people and fallible. And the situation Richard was in in1484/5 was unlike any other he'd been in. The skills of soldiering and mental discipline don't do much to prepare you for losing your only legitimate heir and then your wife, and they don't prepare you for the isolation and potential paranoia of kingship and the constant threat of betrayal he had been under since taking the crown. I can easily believe he was becoming emotionally and mentally exhausted by the start of 1485, and consequently very vulnerable to poor advice, or indeed to "passion" if such seemed to offer security, relief of loneliness, fear etc.

I don't want to come across as suggesting it definitely happened, more that we can't be too narrow in our boundaries of the possible or the admissible. Let's not underestimate the stresses he was under, and allow that a misjudgement or the giving in to the lure of comfort or whatever might be totally understandable.

"angelalice75" wrote:
>
> -Regarding it just being a one-sided crush of Elizabeth's, Croyland does specifically say, or at least suggests, that Richard had conceived "an incestuous passion for his said niece": [snip]

Carol responds:

This is one of the topics that we intend to include in the FAQ. The Croyland chronicler, who was apparently away from the court by this time, is unaware of the marriage negotiations underway with both Portugal and Spain for a much better marriage for Richard (and a true union of the Houses of York and Lancaster since both prospective brides were descendants in a legitimate line from John of Gaunt (in contrast to Tudors descent only through the Beauforts).

I've already noted in another post why it would not be in Richard's interest to marry or even consider marrying his niece, who had been bastardized along with her brothers in Titulus Regius (as the chronicler, who knew about the precontract, ought to have realized. Essentially, Richard would be undermining his own claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth--and all for nothing as there was no dynastic or political advantage in marrying her, not to mention the opprobrium he would face for marrying his niece.

If you're interested, you can search for recent posts on Elizabeth of York. I can't go back over everything that has already been said, but it will appear in the FAQ.

(Neil, I volunteer for that particular topic.)

Carol

________________________________

From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>


Liz replied:
 
Fallible, maybe.  Stupid - never.  I think you underestimate his intelligence, no matter how sad/angry/distraught he was.  Apart from the fact that she was his niece, to consider marrying someone he had, by act of Parliament, declared illegitimate, would have been madness and he would have known it.

Let's not forget Richard would have been only too aware of how Edward's going alone with his feelings (and marrying two women in secret) had caused such problems.  I don't think we can make such an assumption. People are people and fallible. And the situation Richard was in in1484/5 was unlike any other he'd been in. The skills of soldiering and mental discipline don't do much to prepare you for losing your only legitimate heir and then your wife, and they don't prepare you for the isolation and potential paranoia of kingship and the constant threat of betrayal he had been under since taking the crown. I can easily believe he was becoming emotionally and mentally exhausted by the start of 1485, and consequently very vulnerable to poor advice, or indeed to "passion" if such seemed to offer security, relief of loneliness, fear etc.

I don't want to come across as suggesting it definitely happened, more that we can't be too narrow in our boundaries of the possible or the admissible. Let's not underestimate the stresses he was under, and allow that a misjudgement or the giving in to the lure of comfort or whatever might be totally understandable.

In any case negotiations were going on at the time for the Portuguese match for both Richard and EofY..even before Anne died.This has been discussed on here so many times. And if a few commas were put in Buck's letter it would then read that EoY was pushing for the Portuguese match to go ahead as well. This would also explain her remark about her fearing the Queen would never die as the Portugese marriages could obviously not go ahead until Anne was dead.


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> pansydobersby  saidL
>
> snip>
> But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.
>  
> Liz:
> Exactly!  Whatever Richard was, he wasn't a stupid man.    (I think the same with his failure to display the dead princes if he  had killed them by the way.  It would have been stupid.)     Even if he conceived a great passion for E of Y, he would have known exactly what it would mean to act upon it.   
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (49)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 16 * New Photos 1 * New Files 2
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>  
>
>
>

Well, there was Afonso V of Portugal, who married Juana "la Beltraneja",
daughter of his sister Juana of Portgual - who, regardless of whether or
not Enrique IV of Castile was her father, was undoubtedly the daughter of
Afonso's sister.

And then, if you want to get very confused about bloodlines:

there was Manoel I of Portugal who married, in succession:
* Isabel the eldest daughter of Isabel and Fernando
* Maria, the third daughter of Isabel and Fernando
* Eleanor of Portugal, daughter of Juana "la Loca", sister of Isabel and
Maria

and whose son, Joao III of Portugal (whose mother was the Maria named
above), married Catalina, youngest daughter of Juana "la Loca".

(Have fun with *that* bit!)

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> "I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had
> been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of."
>
> Such as ..........?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
> --- In , pansydobersby wrote:
>
> > I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's
> barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to
> 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at
> court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard
> and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly
> completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...
> >
> > Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are
> inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes
> mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or,
> or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what
> Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.
> >
>
> Exactly so, and I'm wary of the temptation to make real people too "tidy"
> in their ethical and practical responses to things. We all know people can
> do unexpected things, crack under pressure, give in to temptation, take
> someone's stupid advice. And Richard *would* have been under huge pressure,
> both as man and as king at this point. His son was dead, his wife was
> dying, he was losing important psychological and emotional supports,
> probably feeling isolated, under heavy responsibility to act for the good
> of the realm and his "blood." . It might just be that marriage to Elizabeth
> seemed like a good idea for a while to a man who was possibly not seeing
> things as clearly as he might under more relaxed circumstances.
>
> If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she
> might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way,
> and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might seem
> like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be
> unquestionably royal. Perhaps "passion' and other things swayed him for a
> while and he really thought it might be the best move, until his friends
> got hold of him and reminded him of the realities.
>
> I can see this as being possible, even for a man of conscience, and don't
> think he should be judged harshly even if it were true.
>
> > But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness
> for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer
> stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece.
> It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard
> was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious,
> morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter
> what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle
> speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a
> religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to
> us.
> >
>
> I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had
> been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of.
>
>
>
>
>

Now the one thing I've never heard Richard described as is a flirt!



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 18:11
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter

> I can understand basically decent people doing immoral things, believing
> the ends justify the means, but in this particular case, Richard would
> have had to sunk pretty low to consider such a marriage a good idea on ANY
> level.

His apparent closeness to Ann, his reluctance to do anything nasty to MB or
to any woman and his strong injunction to the husbands of his relatives to
treat them well suggest a man who liked women a lot, and men who like women
a lot generally like a lot of women - not necessarily with any strong sexual
intent. He may have been one of those men who is automatically charming and
a bit flirtatious towards all women and it got misinterpreted - possibly by
young Elizabeth herself.

I think you have a point here and I don't mean that Richard flirted with Elizabeth. The only comparable time when he acts out of character (forget Hastings and Buckingham when he was betrayed) is when he has suffered a great loss. I'm thinking of his flawed infatuation with Buckingham after the loss of Edward IV who was undoubtedly the sun around which his world revolved . In 1485 he was losing Anne, someone else who had been a constant in his life for a number of years, and she had been with him when he lost his son. He may well have sought some sort of companionship in Elizabeth whom Croyland says bore some physical ressemblance to Anne and she may have misinterpreted this as a different sort of affection. They were two vulnerable people in difficult times and it was easy for all sorts of misinterpretations to be exploited. It's interesting that Clarence seems to have gone to pieces after the death of Isabel. We think of Richard as being more
robust to loss, but perhaps he wasn't.  Just my opinion, so don't ask for primary sources  H 



________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 20:12
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> It's hard to believe that such an experienced soldier - i.e. someone used to
> keeping his head and thinking on his feet - would take leave of his sense to
> quite that extent, though. But he might well have made a *joke* about
> marrying her - "Maybe *I* should bloody-well marry her then" - and somebody
> took him seriously. Especially if his humour tended to the deadpan.
>

I don't think we can make such an assumption. People are people and fallible. And the situation Richard was in in1484/5 was unlike any other he'd been in. The skills of soldiering and mental discipline don't do much to prepare you for losing your only legitimate heir and then your wife, and they don't prepare you for the isolation and potential paranoia of kingship and the constant threat of betrayal he had been under since taking the crown. I can easily believe he was becoming emotionally and mentally exhausted by the start of 1485, and consequently very vulnerable to poor advice, or indeed to "passion" if such seemed to offer security, relief of loneliness, fear etc.

I don't want to come across as suggesting it definitely happened, more that we can't be too narrow in our boundaries of the possible or the admissible. Let's not underestimate the stresses he was under, and allow that a misjudgement or the giving in to the lure of comfort or whatever might be totally understandable.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> He may well have sought some sort of companionship in Elizabeth whom
> Croyland says bore some physical ressemblance to Anne and she may have
> misinterpreted this as a different sort of affection.

Or someone else misinterpreted it. The clothes-changing suggests Ann and
Elizabeth might have been friends, and if so they would both be upset.
Prince Charles was accused by the press of having an affair with one of his
married female friends after being photographed giving her a cuddle - just
after her eight-year-old daughter, who was also his favourite goddaughter,
had died of leukaemia.

pansydobersby wrote:
>[snip]

> I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way... [snip]

Carol responds:

I snipped the part about the sheer stupidity of marrying his niece, but that does seem to be a point that the rumormongers failed to grasp. Not even his worst enemy ever called Richard stupid. (Hope you've had a chance by now to read my post about his *real* plans, forced on him by the necessity of a suitable marriage and producing an heir.)

That aside, I don't think that "many" people were willing to believe the worst of Richard. Those who did, with the possible exception of Rotherham, had long since left the court. The rumors must have been spread by traitors/Tudor partisans like Colyngbourne (not Colyngbourne himself, though. He was already dead by this time).

Carol

And let's not forget. despite stories to the contrary,  that Colyngbourne was "not" executed because of his silly rhyme, but because of his treason in corresponding with Tudor.
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 21:20
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 
pansydobersby wrote:
>[snip]

> I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way... [snip]

Carol responds:

I snipped the part about the sheer stupidity of marrying his niece, but that does seem to be a point that the rumormongers failed to grasp. Not even his worst enemy ever called Richard stupid. (Hope you've had a chance by now to read my post about his *real* plans, forced on him by the necessity of a suitable marriage and producing an heir.)

That aside, I don't think that "many" people were willing to believe the worst of Richard. Those who did, with the possible exception of Rotherham, had long since left the court. The rumors must have been spread by traitors/Tudor partisans like Colyngbourne (not Colyngbourne himself, though. He was already dead by this time).

Carol

When I consider the question of whether Richard intended to replace Anne, I have to separate the king from the man.

I doubt very much that the man wanted to replace Anne, any more than he wanted her to die.

I think the king knew his queen was dying, his councilors knew she was dying, and Anne knew she was dying. All of this was happening without the king having an heir.

I think that the daughter of Warwick would have been the first to remind the king that he needed to marry again and get an heir, because Kings have to secure their throne with a fertile queen and get their heirs in position ASAP.

This didn't mean the man called Richard loved Anne less; it meant Richard was king, and being king/staying king was his first priority. Yes, he would mourn his wife, but mourning would have to be set aside for duty. I think, along with Anne, the king's councilors would also start nudging him in that direction, as in, "Your Grace, perhaps you should be thinking ahead...."

I think that before the queen died, the king was sitting for the portrait(s) that would be sent abroad *after* Anne's death, to ready them for when word would go out that the King of England was on the market for a queen.

I don't think Richard the man or the king was entertaining the thought of marrying his niece in the weeks before or after Anne passed on. It doesn't matter if either one of them desired the other. It doesn't even matter if marrying her would have alienated the North. Marrying the bastard daughter of E4 would not have strengthened R3's ties with any other country, nor would the marriage have helped make the king's throne more secure. Politically, it would have been a disaster. So unless Richard was as madly in love with Elizabeth as Edward IV had been with her mother, Richard wasn't going to marry Elizabeth.

The king's priority was to secure his dynasty, not secure his happiness. I suspect "happiness" isn't something that entered his mind at this point; the realm needed the king, and the king needed another queen and an heir ASAP. What the man needed didn't enter into the political equation at all.

In the end, I think Richard the Third had to look to the future of his realm, regardless what Death was doing to the woman he loved, or what gossip and rumor were doing in London to the vulnerable human beings known as Richard and Elizabeth and Anne.

~Weds

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> I think the question of whether Richard was intending to replace Anne before her death is a separate one from whether he had some sort of intentions towards his niece. Obviously they are connected, but they are also distinct.

You have about said all that could be said in this message Wednesday....excellent post...

I really hope that this subject will be one of those covered for new forum members to read. Because this is one part of the 'mystery' that can be cleared up very quickly....We know for a fact about the Portuguese marriage plans....Would Richard have been planning/hoping to marry his niece while these marriage negotiations were taking place?..Would he go down the same road as Edward did who secretly married EW while Warwick was negotiating for a French match? Was he a fool? People will have to make their own minds up....but I know which way I am going...

Eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> When I consider the question of whether Richard intended to replace Anne, I have to separate the king from the man.
>
> I doubt very much that the man wanted to replace Anne, any more than he wanted her to die.
>
> I think the king knew his queen was dying, his councilors knew she was dying, and Anne knew she was dying. All of this was happening without the king having an heir.
>
> I think that the daughter of Warwick would have been the first to remind the king that he needed to marry again and get an heir, because Kings have to secure their throne with a fertile queen and get their heirs in position ASAP.
>
> This didn't mean the man called Richard loved Anne less; it meant Richard was king, and being king/staying king was his first priority. Yes, he would mourn his wife, but mourning would have to be set aside for duty. I think, along with Anne, the king's councilors would also start nudging him in that direction, as in, "Your Grace, perhaps you should be thinking ahead...."
>
> I think that before the queen died, the king was sitting for the portrait(s) that would be sent abroad *after* Anne's death, to ready them for when word would go out that the King of England was on the market for a queen.
>
> I don't think Richard the man or the king was entertaining the thought of marrying his niece in the weeks before or after Anne passed on. It doesn't matter if either one of them desired the other. It doesn't even matter if marrying her would have alienated the North. Marrying the bastard daughter of E4 would not have strengthened R3's ties with any other country, nor would the marriage have helped make the king's throne more secure. Politically, it would have been a disaster. So unless Richard was as madly in love with Elizabeth as Edward IV had been with her mother, Richard wasn't going to marry Elizabeth.
>
> The king's priority was to secure his dynasty, not secure his happiness. I suspect "happiness" isn't something that entered his mind at this point; the realm needed the king, and the king needed another queen and an heir ASAP. What the man needed didn't enter into the political equation at all.
>
> In the end, I think Richard the Third had to look to the future of his realm, regardless what Death was doing to the woman he loved, or what gossip and rumor were doing in London to the vulnerable human beings known as Richard and Elizabeth and Anne.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the question of whether Richard was intending to replace Anne before her death is a separate one from whether he had some sort of intentions towards his niece. Obviously they are connected, but they are also distinct.
>

I think we are straying from the topic here.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter

> He may well have sought some sort of companionship in Elizabeth whom
> Croyland says bore some physical ressemblance to Anne and she may have
> misinterpreted this as a different sort of affection.

Or someone else misinterpreted it. The clothes-changing suggests Ann and
Elizabeth might have been friends, and if so they would both be upset.
Prince Charles was accused by the press of having an affair with one of his
married female friends after being photographed giving her a cuddle - just
after her eight-year-old daughter, who was also his favourite goddaughter,
had died of leukaemia.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> I think we are straying from the topic here.

No, we're not. We're talking about how the rumour that Richard wanted to
marry his niece could have come about, other than it being true.

How does Prince Charles come into this?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
> letter
>
>
> > I think we are straying from the topic here.
>
> No, we're not. We're talking about how the rumour that Richard wanted to
> marry his niece could have come about, other than it being true.
>

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> How does Prince Charles come into this?

As an example of how gossips hover around celebrities, especially royalty,
and interpret any gesture of affection or friendship as sexual even when it
is nothing but a moment of shared grief such as might well have been seen
between Richard and Elizabeth, especially if all that business about changes
of clothes means, as somebody suggested, that she and Ann were close.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> Now the one thing I've never heard Richard described as is a flirt!

Think of von Poppelau's description of him, how sparky he sounds, and the
bit of business where he spontaneously takes a gold collar from the neck of
one of his men to give it to von Poppelau. And all that business at the
court with Ann and Elizabth dressing identically and changing dresses, which
he presumably at least connived in. And the colourful expensive clothes he
seems to have ordered, and the boyhood motto which seems to mean something
like "My desire is so intense". And the eye-witness reminiscence - which I
maintain is perfectly possible, provided there was a Countess of Desmond
whose dates were something like 1474-1572 - which described him as an
excellent dancer. And there's a document somewhere from his time as Lord of
the North where somebody is complaining that Gloucester smiles all the time
and makes promises to do this or that for the people, but doesn't always
deliver. This is quite apart from his evcident genuine fondness for women.
He certainly sounds like the kind of guy who *might* be a bit of a flirt!

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> You have about said all that could be said in this message Wednesday....excellent post...
>
> I really hope that this subject will be one of those covered for new forum members to read. Because this is one part of the 'mystery' that can be cleared up very quickly....We know for a fact about the Portuguese marriage plans....Would Richard have been planning/hoping to marry his niece while these marriage negotiations were taking place?..Would he go down the same road as Edward did who secretly married EW while Warwick was negotiating for a French match? Was he a fool? People will have to make their own minds up....but I know which way I am going...
>

Carol responds:

Hi, Eileen. That was one of my original FAQ questions (forgive the redundancy) and I've already volunteered in another post to answer this particular question. In case you didn't see it, Neil, I'm volunteering again.

And, yes, Weds, great post!

Carol

wednesday_mc wrote:

"When I consider the question of whether Richard intended to replace Anne, I
have to separate the king from the man.
I doubt very much that the man wanted to replace Anne, any more than he
wanted her to die.
I think the king knew his queen was dying, his councilors knew she was
dying, and Anne knew she was dying. All of this was happening without the
king having an heir.
I think that the daughter of Warwick would have been the first to remind the
king that he needed to marry again and get an heir, because Kings have to
secure their throne with a fertile queen and get their heirs in position
ASAP.
This didn't mean the man called Richard loved Anne less; it meant Richard
was king, and being king/staying king was his first priority. Yes, he would
mourn his wife, but mourning would have to be set aside for duty. I think,
along with Anne, the king's councilors would also start nudging him in that
direction, as in, "Your Grace, perhaps you should be thinking ahead...."
I think that before the queen died, the king was sitting for the portrait(s)
that would be sent abroad *after* Anne's death, to ready them for when word
would go out that the King of England was on the market for a queen.
I don't think Richard the man or the king was entertaining the thought of
marrying his niece in the weeks before or after Anne passed on. It doesn't
matter if either one of them desired the other. It doesn't even matter if
marrying her would have alienated the North. Marrying the bastard daughter
of E4 would not have strengthened R3's ties with any other country, nor
would the marriage have helped make the king's throne more secure.
Politically, it would have been a disaster. So unless Richard was as madly
in love with Elizabeth as Edward IV had been with her mother, Richard wasn't
going to marry Elizabeth.
The king's priority was to secure his dynasty, not secure his happiness. I
suspect "happiness" isn't something that entered his mind at this point; the
realm needed the king, and the king needed another queen and an heir ASAP.
What the man needed didn't enter into the political equation at all.
In the end, I think Richard the Third had to look to the future of his
realm, regardless what Death was doing to the woman he loved, or what gossip
and rumor were doing in London to the vulnerable human beings known as
Richard and Elizabeth and Anne."

Doug here:
An excellent summation!
Perhaps *you* should do the Michener/Stone-style novel about Richard, Anne
and their times. You certainly have a feel for what the period and the
people - two of them, anyway. Just trying to get the *reality* of that
period across to modern readers would, I should think, take a novel not
unlike those Michener/Stone wrote.
Doug

Good....It would be a great relief if this particular subject could be dealt with in the FAQ...Its not as if it is a mystery is it....? Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > You have about said all that could be said in this message Wednesday....excellent post...
> >
> > I really hope that this subject will be one of those covered for new forum members to read. Because this is one part of the 'mystery' that can be cleared up very quickly....We know for a fact about the Portuguese marriage plans....Would Richard have been planning/hoping to marry his niece while these marriage negotiations were taking place?..Would he go down the same road as Edward did who secretly married EW while Warwick was negotiating for a French match? Was he a fool? People will have to make their own minds up....but I know which way I am going...
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Eileen. That was one of my original FAQ questions (forgive the redundancy) and I've already volunteered in another post to answer this particular question. In case you didn't see it, Neil, I'm volunteering again.
>
> And, yes, Weds, great post!
>
> Carol
>

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
________________________________
>  
> Fallible, maybe.  Stupid - never. 


This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with. I don't think we can make such absolute statements about our own selves or people we know well, let alone historical personages whose personalities are known to us in outline only.

From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
________________________________
>  
> Fallible, maybe.  Stupid - never. 

This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with.
 
That of course is up to you but I'm not aware of any facts that suggest Richard would contemplate such stupidity.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:27
> Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter
>
>  
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> ________________________________
> >  
> > Fallible, maybe.  Stupid - never. 
>
> This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with.
>  
> That of course is up to you but I'm not aware of any facts that suggest Richard would contemplate such stupidity.

Well, there is the fact he was a human being, isn't there. And no human being has ever or will ever be entirely immune from acts of stupidity.

There there is the fact he was in a situation of chronic high stress, which can further impair a person's judgement - and indeed his handling of Stanley and Margaret Beaufort certainly implies he wasn't being altogether shrewd towards the end of his life.

If (I stress *if*) all these things made him lose a little judgement, and persuaded him to grab at a chance for feeling happy or safe that turned out to be illusory, then I would not think it implied either evil or stupidity on his part - simply normal human frailty.

From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter


> This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with. I
don't think we can make such absolute statements about our

> own selves or people we know well, let alone historical personages whose
personalities are known to us in outline only.



I think it's probably fair to say that it seems highly unlikely based on what we know but, yes, we can't make categorical statements at this remove.  That would be to take us down the Alison Weir route of "proofs" that just don't exist.

Jonathan



________________________________



 


--- In , liz williams wrote:
________________________________
>  
> Fallible, maybe.  Stupid - never. 

This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with. I don't think we can make such absolute statements about our own selves or people we know well, let alone historical personages whose personalities are known to us in outline only.

From: angelalice75

Liz replied:  It "could" yes but it's highly unlikely that even under such great stress he would behave in a way so "Completely" opposite to normal.  (For example you mention Stanley and MB but Richard generally seems to have been a bit more  forgiving generally,  at least as far as I can see.)  We could speculate for the next 500 years. 

I "can" believe he might lose "a little judgement" but not so much that he behaved like a complete idiot, because it would have been idiocy to have, for one moment, thought about marrying E of Y.  There's also the fact that Ratcliffe and Catesby are supposed to have dissuaded him - and are we then expected to believe that they went round telling everyone about it -  because how else would we know what they said?   But that's more speculation still and to be honest I think this issue has been speculated to death. 

If (I stress *if*) all these things made him lose a little judgement, and persuaded him to grab at a chance for feeling happy or safe that turned out to be illusory, then I would not think it implied either evil or stupidity on his part - simply normal human frailty.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> It "could" yes but it's highly unlikely that even under such great stress he would behave in a way so "Completely" opposite to normal.  (For example you mention Stanley and MB but Richard generally seems to have been a bit more  forgiving generally,  at least as far as I can see.)  We could speculate for the next 500 years. 
>
> I "can" believe he might lose "a little judgement" but not so much that he behaved like a complete idiot, because it would have been idiocy to have, for one moment, thought about marrying E of Y.  There's also the fact that Ratcliffe and Catesby are supposed to have dissuaded him - and are we then expected to believe that they went round telling everyone about it -  because how else would we know what they said?   But that's more speculation still and to be honest I think this issue has been speculated to death. 

In the medieval court the king was rarely entirely alone, and even private meetings were overheard by servants of various stations, who were no doubt paid by various interested parties to repeat anything they picked up. It's not hard to imagine a dozen different ways that Catesby's and Ratcliffe's words might have leaked out, so I don't see that as any kind of objection.

I do appreciate that Richard tended to be more forgiving than some toward enemies. but nevertheless his handling of Stanley and MB turned out to be a terrific misjudgement, and *might* imply a man who was losing his way a little.

From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: the vexed question of the Buck
letter


> I think it's probably fair to say that it seems highly unlikely based on
> what we know but, yes, we can't make categorical statements at this
> remove. That would be to take us down the Alison Weir route of "proofs"
> that just don't exist.

Unless he was actively mentally-ill I think we can rule out the possibility
of his wanting to marry his niece, to the sort of "beyond reasonable doubt"
level which would be acceptable in a court of law, but we probably can't
rule out the unpleasant possibility of his seducing or being seduced by his
niece without any intention to marry her.

There is a biological tension in social mammals between the incest-taboo,
which means that in many species including humans individuals tend on the
whole not to form sexual attachments to close relations, and the fact that
individuals tend to imprint on their own parents, and therefore be attracted
to partners who look like members of their family.

It was found that on strict hard-line kibbutzim where all the children were
raised in a communal children's house, those children would not form sexual
relationships with each other when they grew up, even though they were not
related. So it isn't the knowledge of being related which sets up the sense
of taboo: it's having grown up in close proximity.

At the same time, there's a known risk that if siblings meet for the first
time as adults they have an increased likelihood of being sexually attracted
to each other. This is why e.g. there are strict rules about how many AI
babies can be fathered in a given area from a single sperm donor.

It is possible, therefore, that Richard and Elizabeth, having a family
resemblance and not having spent a great deal of time together when
Elizabeth was growing up, might have been selectively attracted to each
other.

However, the Buck letter, if indeed it refers to a sexual attraction between
Richard and Elizabeth and isn't just a rather overheated appeal for him to
get his finger out and get on with arranging her marriage to someone else,
suggests that the attraction was one-sided, or at least that Richard was
resistant to it. If he had been in a sexual relationship with Elizabeth,
why would she have needed to express her passion - twice! - through an
intermediary, rather than directly to him?

Also - was it Norfolk she was writing to? I forget. If it wasn't, please
mentally delete "Norfolk" and insert the name of the appropriate person.
If her letter was about a sexual relationship and proposed marriage to
Richard himself, we have to assume that she thought Norfolk - not just an
arguably besotted and certainly desperately stressed-out Richard - might
think that it was a good idea and might urge the king to go along with it.
And whether she was right about that oir not she had evidently asked him the
same thing previously and he hadn't told her it was a ridiculous idea and
never to mention it again.

So for it to be true, we have to assume not only that Richard was behaving
stupidly but that Norfolk was as well, or that Elizabeth was behaving
stupidly and obsessively by thinking Norfolk might agree. Whilst not
totally impossible it's stacking up the imporobabilities here.

Reluctantly - because I admit I find the idea of Richard being stalked by
his passion-crazed niece quite funny - I ahve to conclude that Buck probably
misunderstood her letter and it was about her proposed marriage abroad.

I will be relieved when the FAQ is complete, with the well-documented Portugese double marriage plans to scotch the Tudor spin on the subject.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?



Good....It would be a great relief if this particular subject could be dealt with in the FAQ...Its not as if it is a mystery is it....? Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You have about said all that could be said in this message Wednesday....excellent post...
> >
> > I really hope that this subject will be one of those covered for new forum members to read. Because this is one part of the 'mystery' that can be cleared up very quickly....We know for a fact about the Portuguese marriage plans....Would Richard have been planning/hoping to marry his niece while these marriage negotiations were taking place?..Would he go down the same road as Edward did who secretly married EW while Warwick was negotiating for a French match? Was he a fool? People will have to make their own minds up....but I know which way I am going...
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Eileen. That was one of my original FAQ questions (forgive the redundancy) and I've already volunteered in another post to answer this particular question. In case you didn't see it, Neil, I'm volunteering again.
>
> And, yes, Weds, great post!
>
> Carol
>

Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."

On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?

I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.

Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.









--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "When I consider the question of whether Richard intended to replace Anne, I
> have to separate the king from the man.
> I doubt very much that the man wanted to replace Anne, any more than he
> wanted her to die.
> I think the king knew his queen was dying, his councilors knew she was
> dying, and Anne knew she was dying. All of this was happening without the
> king having an heir.
> I think that the daughter of Warwick would have been the first to remind the
> king that he needed to marry again and get an heir, because Kings have to
> secure their throne with a fertile queen and get their heirs in position
> ASAP.
> This didn't mean the man called Richard loved Anne less; it meant Richard
> was king, and being king/staying king was his first priority. Yes, he would
> mourn his wife, but mourning would have to be set aside for duty. I think,
> along with Anne, the king's councilors would also start nudging him in that
> direction, as in, "Your Grace, perhaps you should be thinking ahead...."
> I think that before the queen died, the king was sitting for the portrait(s)
> that would be sent abroad *after* Anne's death, to ready them for when word
> would go out that the King of England was on the market for a queen.
> I don't think Richard the man or the king was entertaining the thought of
> marrying his niece in the weeks before or after Anne passed on. It doesn't
> matter if either one of them desired the other. It doesn't even matter if
> marrying her would have alienated the North. Marrying the bastard daughter
> of E4 would not have strengthened R3's ties with any other country, nor
> would the marriage have helped make the king's throne more secure.
> Politically, it would have been a disaster. So unless Richard was as madly
> in love with Elizabeth as Edward IV had been with her mother, Richard wasn't
> going to marry Elizabeth.
> The king's priority was to secure his dynasty, not secure his happiness. I
> suspect "happiness" isn't something that entered his mind at this point; the
> realm needed the king, and the king needed another queen and an heir ASAP.
> What the man needed didn't enter into the political equation at all.
> In the end, I think Richard the Third had to look to the future of his
> realm, regardless what Death was doing to the woman he loved, or what gossip
> and rumor were doing in London to the vulnerable human beings known as
> Richard and Elizabeth and Anne."
>
> Doug here:
> An excellent summation!
> Perhaps *you* should do the Michener/Stone-style novel about Richard, Anne
> and their times. You certainly have a feel for what the period and the
> people - two of them, anyway. Just trying to get the *reality* of that
> period across to modern readers would, I should think, take a novel not
> unlike those Michener/Stone wrote.
> Doug
>

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard
> the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea
> Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there
> isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as
> a fact,

Not in so many words, afaik, but we have Richard's own words, recorded by
the Mercers, that he was as sorry at Ann's death as it was possible for a
man to be, and there's the source - is it Croyland? - which says that he
continued to visit Ann every night even when she was sick, and had to be
barred from her bed by his doctors to protect him from infection -
suggesting that he himself had been willing to risk his own death to go to
her - and that he wept openly at her funeral and had to shut himself away
for three days afterwards.

This paraphrase http://joanszechtman.com/?page_id=78 is attributing the
funeral bit to Croyland and it's not clear whether the bit about visiting
her bed is from Croyland too, but somebody else quoted it a few days ago so
I'm hoping they know if it's from Croyland or not.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard
> > the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea
> > Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there
> > isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as
> > a fact,
>
> Not in so many words, afaik, but we have Richard's own words, recorded by
> the Mercers, that he was as sorry at Ann's death as it was possible for a
> man to be, and there's the source - is it Croyland? - which says that he
> continued to visit Ann every night even when she was sick, and had to be
> barred from her bed by his doctors to protect him from infection -
> suggesting that he himself had been willing to risk his own death to go to
> her - and that he wept openly at her funeral and had to shut himself away
> for three days afterwards.
>

Well, this is all Croyland says about Anne's illness and death:

"In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his physicians that he did so. Why enlarge? About the middle of the following month, upon the day of the great eclipse of the sun, which then took place, queen Anne, before-named, departed this life, and was buried at Westminster, with no less honors than befitted the interment of a queen."

As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in the way you describe:

"and her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his physicians that he did so."

This segues eventually into the bit I quoted before about Richard's alleged "incestuous passion" for his niece.

There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said before - anyone know the source?




> This paraphrase http://joanszechtman.com/?page_id=78 is attributing the
> funeral bit to Croyland and it's not clear whether the bit about visiting
> her bed is from Croyland too, but somebody else quoted it a few days ago so
> I'm hoping they know if it's from Croyland or not.
>

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
>


But that's the thing. We only have circumstantial evidence that he loved his wife, but there's also no evidence to contradict that possibility. So, yes - obviously we have no way to know what he really thought or felt about Anne (or she about him) - and we can know even less what he felt for him 'as a woman' and whether that would accord with our modern ideas of love. But, at the very least, they did marry out of their own free will (and against opposition), and none of the existing evidence gives any reason to believe it wasn't a good marriage.

In the case of Elizabeth, though, there's evidence only that a rumour existed, and like I said in an earlier message, the existence of a rumour doesn't prove the rumour - it only proves the existence of a rumour. (The Buck letter paraphrase can't be considered to be evidence of anything, as we can't even be sure what it would be evidence *of*, given the circumstances!) What is more, what is known as a fact - the Portuguese marriage negotiations going on at the same time - actually contradicts the rumour as it is (i.e., the rumour that has Richard planning to marry Elizabeth himself).

So, on the one hand, we have:

(a) A married couple who were together over 10 years, and (to put it in the most neutral terms possible) don't appear to have been unhappy together. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine they were at least fond of each other and accustomed to each other's company - which they would have been even if they'd never been 'in love' at all. Companionate love is love, too.

(b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...

Even if I put my most cynical goggles on, I do find scenario (a) plausible in a way that (b) simply isn't. IMO.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> the way you describe:

Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
became ill they had been regular bedfellows.

Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
caught mumps.

> There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> before - anyone know the source?

The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
a modern invention.

Liz wrote:

> > Fallible, maybe. Stupid - never.

angelica responded:
 

> This is exactly the kind of total dismissal I have a problem with. I don't think we can make such absolute statements about our own selves or people we know well, let alone historical personages whose personalities are known to us in outline only.

Carol responds:

The evidence of Richard's intelligence is abundant--in his correspondence, in his legislation, in the praise he received from Edward. He was indeed, as Liz says, fallible, and some of his mistakes were disastrous. But I am aware of no evidence that he was ever stupid.

As for total dismissal, doesn't calling him the son of a Mafia lord (I can't recall your exact words) amount to a similar dismissal? Forgive me, but it seems presumptuous in a new member to tell other members what to think or how to post. Liz is not only entitled to her opinion, she is probably correct.

Carol

All this may be true, but I still come back to:  wouldn't he have had to declare Elizabeth legitimate in order to marry her? Then, wouldn't this make her brothers legitmate too?  That's the part that I can't make sense of.  If Richard changed the status of Edward's children, then he could not be king.
I personally believe the rumor started because Elizabeth had a crush on her uncle and acted the way a teenager with a crush would act.  The letter just says what Elizabeth thinks, not what Richard thinks.
Vickie 

From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby wrote:

> I do think the conditions were perfect for such a rumour, though. Anne's barrenness; everybody knew he needed an heir and could easily claim to 'know' he was going to replace her eventually; Elizabeth's presence at court; some (many?) people's willingness to believe the worst of Richard and his motives; and probably some other details we don't know, possibly completely innocent details that got twisted along the way...
>
> Of course, 'people are strange' as the song goes - people are inconsistent and people change (especially under pressure), sometimes mental illness develops, sometimes they snap for no discernible reason, or, or, or... My point being that obviously there's no way to be *sure* what Richard was thinking about Elizabeth of York.
>

Exactly so, and I'm wary of the temptation to make real people too "tidy" in their ethical and practical responses to things. We all know people can do unexpected things, crack under pressure, give in to temptation, take someone's stupid advice. And Richard *would* have been under huge pressure, both as man and as king at this point. His son was dead, his wife was dying, he was losing important psychological and emotional supports, probably feeling isolated, under heavy responsibility to act for the good of the realm and his "blood." . It might just be that marriage to Elizabeth seemed like a good idea for a while to a man who was possibly not seeing things as clearly as he might under more relaxed circumstances.

If she was young and bright and reminiscent of his dead brother then she might have seemed safe or appealing or trustworthy in some subliminal way, and if married to him then she wasn't available for Tudor, which might seem like a big plus from a certain perspective. Their children would be unquestionably royal. Perhaps "passion' and other things swayed him for a while and he really thought it might be the best move, until his friends got hold of him and reminded him of the realities.

I can see this as being possible, even for a man of conscience, and don't think he should be judged harshly even if it were true.

> But I suppose my main objection to the whole scenario isn't my fondness for the idea that Richard was hopelessly devoted to Anne, but the sheer stupidity of his even entertaining the possibility of marrying his niece. It would have been so stupid on so many levels, and I don't think Richard was a stupid man. What is more, if he considered himself a religious, morally upright, and basically decent man - as I believe he did (no matter what I believe him to 'really' have been, as that is even more idle speculation) - the very thought of marrying his niece would have been to a religious 15th-century person just as incestuous and repulsive as it is to us.
>

I'm not sure it would have seemed that repulsive. Papal dispensations had been given for men to marry their nieces, so it wasn't unheard of.

"angelalice75" <wrote:

>
> Well, there is the fact he was a human being, isn't there. And no human being has ever or will ever be entirely immune from acts of stupidity.
>
> There there is the fact he was in a situation of chronic high stress, which can further impair a person's judgement - and indeed his handling of Stanley and Margaret Beaufort certainly implies he wasn't being altogether shrewd towards the end of his life.
>
> If (I stress *if*) all these things made him lose a little judgement, and persuaded him to grab at a chance for feeling happy or safe that turned out to be illusory, then I would not think it implied either evil or stupidity on his part - simply normal human frailty.
>
Carol responds:

It seems that you're still unaware, after all our posts on the subject, that Richard not only denied any intention to marry Elizabeth or York, which was contrary to his interests and would have been political suicide, but also was making plans for a Continental marriage with either a Spanish or a Portuguese princess.

If you want to read about a love affair between Richard and Elizabeth of York, may I suggest Philippa Gregory? If you want the facts, try Annette Carson.

Carol

"angelalice75" wrote:
>
> Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
>
> On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
>
> I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
>
> Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.
>
Carol responds:

Your speculation that Richard may have loved his niece is also straying beyond the sources. Buck presents Elizabeth as having a passion for her uncle (a possible misreading or misremembering of the letter), not vice versa, and the Croyland commentator, who was no longer at court, repeats (and believes) the rumors spread by Tudor supporters that Richard intended to *marry* Elizabeth of York, clearly unaware of the marriage negotiations with Spain and Portugal. As the only basis for such a marriage, which would bring no benefit to Richard (financial, political, or dynastic), must be "an incestuous passion," the chronicler assumes that this is the case. His assertion that Richard was bullied out of the marriage by Catesby and Ratcliffe is simply nonsense. Richard had much better reasons for not contemplating such a marriage, notably that it would undermine his own claim as stated in Titulus Regius.

The historical sources do not lead us to any such conclusion. It's essential to consider the unreliability and bias of the Croyland chronicler and the many gaps in his knowledge. (He actually has Henry charging Richard at Bosworth, for example.)

The historical documents actually lead us in a completely different direction, the *fact* that Edward Brampton was in Portugal negotiating a marriage for Richard soon after his wife's death being one of them. And while the Croyland chronicler, who wasn't present, presents Richard's denial of poisoning his wife and wishing to marry his niece as consummate hypocrisy, the Mercer's account shows a very different Richard:

""[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).

If we trust a historical source, I suggest that it be this eyewitness account, which objectively records what Richard actually said and not the account of an enemy like the Croyland chronicler, whose errors make clear that he is reporting at secondhand from Tudor sources.

Carol

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
>
>
> (b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...
>

Clarifying my own thoughts here: if we speculate that Richard had a 'passion' for Elizabeth, then we must be speculating on the basis that there was a rumour about it, so (in that line of reasoning) that rumour must have been based on something in their behaviour. Right? So that's why I'm asking how exactly this passion would have manifested itself so that others would have taken notice? Would they have been carrying on a torrid and very indiscreet little affair, or what?

Or is it more likely that something - the Portuguese marriage plans, or possibly Elizabeth's own behaviour, or the fact that Richard might have been friendly with his niece, or all such things together, or some malicious gossip - was simply misinterpreted and gave rise to the rumour?

I think it's a bit wrongheaded to think assume that 'there must have been something scandalous in their behaviour to give rise to the marriage rumours' when it might just as easily have been 'there was the marriage rumour, which made people jump to conclusions about an incestuous passion'.

If we're just speculating that he *might* have privately felt a hidden passion for her, well - by the same token we might speculate that he had a hidden passion for Elizabeth Woodville or Buckingham...

Surely, if there had been something 'scandalous' to be noticed then *that* would have been the rumour. Not that Richard was contemplating marriage but that he was carrying on in an unseemly way with his niece.



--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > (b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...
> >
>
> Clarifying my own thoughts here: if we speculate that Richard had a 'passion' for Elizabeth, then we must be speculating on the basis that there was a rumour about it, so (in that line of reasoning) that rumour must have been based on something in their behaviour. Right? So that's why I'm asking how exactly this passion would have manifested itself so that others would have taken notice? Would they have been carrying on a torrid and very indiscreet little affair, or what?
>
> Or is it more likely that something - the Portuguese marriage plans, or possibly Elizabeth's own behaviour, or the fact that Richard might have been friendly with his niece, or all such things together, or some malicious gossip - was simply misinterpreted and gave rise to the rumour?
>
> I think it's a bit wrongheaded to think assume that 'there must have been something scandalous in their behaviour to give rise to the marriage rumours' when it might just as easily have been 'there was the marriage rumour, which made people jump to conclusions about an incestuous passion'.
>
> If we're just speculating that he *might* have privately felt a hidden passion for her, well - by the same token we might speculate that he had a hidden passion for Elizabeth Woodville or Buckingham...
>

Very well put Pansy.....Eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> But that's the thing. We only have circumstantial evidence that he loved his wife, but there's also no evidence to contradict that possibility. So, yes - obviously we have no way to know what he really thought or felt about Anne (or she about him) - and we can know even less what he felt for him 'as a woman' and whether that would accord with our modern ideas of love. But, at the very least, they did marry out of their own free will (and against opposition), and none of the existing evidence gives any reason to believe it wasn't a good marriage.
>
> In the case of Elizabeth, though, there's evidence only that a rumour existed, and like I said in an earlier message, the existence of a rumour doesn't prove the rumour - it only proves the existence of a rumour. (The Buck letter paraphrase can't be considered to be evidence of anything, as we can't even be sure what it would be evidence *of*, given the circumstances!) What is more, what is known as a fact - the Portuguese marriage negotiations going on at the same time - actually contradicts the rumour as it is (i.e., the rumour that has Richard planning to marry Elizabeth himself).
>
> So, on the one hand, we have:
>
> (a) A married couple who were together over 10 years, and (to put it in the most neutral terms possible) don't appear to have been unhappy together. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine they were at least fond of each other and accustomed to each other's company - which they would have been even if they'd never been 'in love' at all. Companionate love is love, too.
>
> (b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...
>
> Even if I put my most cynical goggles on, I do find scenario (a) plausible in a way that (b) simply isn't. IMO.
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> I think it's a bit wrongheaded to think assume that 'there must have been
> something scandalous in their behaviour to give rise to the marriage
> rumours' when it might just as easily have been 'there was the marriage
> rumour, which made people jump to conclusions about an incestuous
> passion'.

Yes. The existence of a rumour implies a reason why the rumour started, but
rumours can start from a word or action taken out of context or a snatch of
conversation overheard and misunderstood, or a joke taken seriously - they
don't have to have any basis in fact.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> In the case of Elizabeth, though, there's evidence only that a rumour existed, and like I said in an earlier message, the existence of a rumour doesn't prove the rumour - it only proves the existence of a rumour. (The Buck letter paraphrase can't be considered to be evidence of anything, as we can't even be sure what it would be evidence *of*, given the circumstances!) What is more, what is known as a fact - the Portuguese marriage negotiations going on at the same time - actually contradicts the rumour as it is (i.e., the rumour that has Richard planning to marry Elizabeth himself).

>
> (b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...
>

> Even if I put my most cynical goggles on, I do find scenario (a) plausible in a way that (b) simply isn't. IMO.
>


It seems to me Croyland gives us the scenario, so we don't need to invent one of our own.

According to Croyland:

1. Richard becomes enamoured of Elizabeth some time around Christmas of 1484. Rumours begin circulating that he is planning to get rid of his wife and marry his niece.

2. His wife falls sick soon after and dies a few months later.

3. Richard's idea about marrying his niece becomes known to the council and Richard calls them together to deny it, though (says Croyland) many of the members knew he was lying.

4. Catesby and Ratcliffe warn him if he perseveres with this marriage there will be hell to pay. They succeed in convincing him so that...

5. "a little before Easter" Richard makes a public denial of his intentions to marry his niece, and from then on we can assume the idea - if it ever existed - was effectively dead.

I'm not sure what seems so implausible tbh, and I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't seem to abandon his sick wife." Croyland specifically says he stopped sleeping with his wife when she was sick, which is the only evidence I know of on the subject.

And let's bear in mind, if the Croyland timeline is true, the idea of marriage to EoY was only in the air for a few weeks or months, and only being discussed by the king's most trusted advisors, so the Portuguese negotiation may have been started before this was an issue, or started as a blind by Richard to throw his enemies off the scent, or simply be an example of statesmen keeping options open. After all, kings would often be negotiating multiple marriage options at one time wouldn't they.

As to it being uncharacteristically stupid for Richard to contemplate such a marriage. Surely we mean it would have been uncharacteristically stupid for him to have *made* such a marriage - which of course he didn't. Contemplating it is another matter. All that implies is a moment of weakness or misjudgement, loneliness or "passion." Edward IV would probably have given in to it completely, got married and to hell with what came next. It's surely to Richard's credit, that, if he did very much want to marry EoY, that in the end he didn't do it.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> Contemplating it is another matter. All that implies is a moment of
> weakness or misjudgement, loneliness or "passion."

A "moment", maybe. I suppose one could imagine him taking the idea out and
looking at it for a few minutes, before going "Nah...." But your scenario
requires him to have contemplated it seriously for a couple of months, which
would requite him to be actually mentally ill - and whilst he was badly
stressed he seems to have kept on functioning.

Croyland Chronicler, whoever he was, clearly did not like Richard. His perception of him is thus coloured by this as in his disapproval of the innocent fun of Anne and EoY exchanging clothes/wearing similar dresses. Probably this applies to his statement that Richard shunned Anne's bed when probably what happened was, as Anne became ill and worsened it would have been the most natural thing that Richard would no longer share her bed as both of them would have been disturbed. As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > the way you describe:
>
> Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
>
> Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> caught mumps.
>
> > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > before - anyone know the source?
>
> The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> a modern invention.
>

The Croyland continuator from 1483, a misinformed, malicious individual whose chronology cannot be relied upon.
Try this instead:
1) Anne becomes ill around Christmas and dies.
2) He plans the double Portugese wedding *proven by documents about Brampton's visit*.
3) There are some small-scale rumours spread but Richard denies them because they are untrue.
4) Richard dies at Bosworth.
5) Croyland et al enhance and backdate the rumours, trying to cover up the negotiations.

I would strongly advise you to read Carson on this - she determines the more likely sequence of events. The old sources you mention are proved relatively worthless because they were written after Bosworth, abroad, by non-English speakers, for a purpose or more than one of the above. Only one person on here takes them at all seriously because we have seen the real evidence of the Portugese negotiations.
----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?





--- In , pansydobersby wrote:
> In the case of Elizabeth, though, there's evidence only that a rumour existed, and like I said in an earlier message, the existence of a rumour doesn't prove the rumour - it only proves the existence of a rumour. (The Buck letter paraphrase can't be considered to be evidence of anything, as we can't even be sure what it would be evidence *of*, given the circumstances!) What is more, what is known as a fact - the Portuguese marriage negotiations going on at the same time - actually contradicts the rumour as it is (i.e., the rumour that has Richard planning to marry Elizabeth himself).

>
> (b) A man who suddenly loses his mind and falls in passionate love with her niece, whilst negotiating a marriage for her out of the country. The man doesn't appear to abandon his sick wife, but at the same time he's - what? How does such a passion manifest itself, as it obviously isn't meant to lead to marriage? Is it just outrageous flirtation that makes on-lookers tut-tut with disapproval? Or are we talking about an actual physical relationship here? In which case, the man really would have been incredibly stupid - what was the plan, to take the girl's virginity in a heat of passion and then ship the damaged goods off to your allies in Portugal, possibly with an illegitimate and incestuous bun in the oven, and hope that they won't notice?! I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this is taking the lack of political acumen to a whole new level...
>

> Even if I put my most cynical goggles on, I do find scenario (a) plausible in a way that (b) simply isn't. IMO.
>

It seems to me Croyland gives us the scenario, so we don't need to invent one of our own.

According to Croyland:

1. Richard becomes enamoured of Elizabeth some time around Christmas of 1484. Rumours begin circulating that he is planning to get rid of his wife and marry his niece.

2. His wife falls sick soon after and dies a few months later.

3. Richard's idea about marrying his niece becomes known to the council and Richard calls them together to deny it, though (says Croyland) many of the members knew he was lying.

4. Catesby and Ratcliffe warn him if he perseveres with this marriage there will be hell to pay. They succeed in convincing him so that...

5. "a little before Easter" Richard makes a public denial of his intentions to marry his niece, and from then on we can assume the idea - if it ever existed - was effectively dead.

I'm not sure what seems so implausible tbh, and I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't seem to abandon his sick wife." Croyland specifically says he stopped sleeping with his wife when she was sick, which is the only evidence I know of on the subject.

And let's bear in mind, if the Croyland timeline is true, the idea of marriage to EoY was only in the air for a few weeks or months, and only being discussed by the king's most trusted advisors, so the Portuguese negotiation may have been started before this was an issue, or started as a blind by Richard to throw his enemies off the scent, or simply be an example of statesmen keeping options open. After all, kings would often be negotiating multiple marriage options at one time wouldn't they.

As to it being uncharacteristically stupid for Richard to contemplate such a marriage. Surely we mean it would have been uncharacteristically stupid for him to have *made* such a marriage - which of course he didn't. Contemplating it is another matter. All that implies is a moment of weakness or misjudgement, loneliness or "passion." Edward IV would probably have given in to it completely, got married and to hell with what came next. It's surely to Richard's credit, that, if he did very much want to marry EoY, that in the end he didn't do it.

"angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Well, this is all Croyland says about Anne's illness and death:
>
> "In the course of a few days after this, the queen fell extremely sick, and her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his physicians that he did so. Why enlarge? About the middle of the following month, upon the day of the great eclipse of the sun, which then took place, queen Anne, before-named, departed this life, and was buried at Westminster, with no less honors than befitted the interment of a queen."

Carol responds:

Notice the Tudor spin that he's putting on this information. Richard *declares* that he's shunning her bed because his physicians have advised him to do so, but Croyland goes into one of his melodramatic, superstitious tirades about the eclipse, implying God's judgment on Richard.

But note that if we take Richard at his word, his physicians really did advise him to to stay away from her bed, either because they feared that her illness was contagious or because, as some posters here have suggested, it was some sort of female disorder that they feared would contaminate him. Take away the Tudor spin and you have physicians ordering a king not to sleep with his dying king for the sake of his own health and, by implication, the safety of the kingdom.

Note, too, that Richard had her buried at Westminster with all the honor due a queen. (That part he probably couldn't turn into propaganda because the funeral would have been witnessed by many people.)

The real question is one we've explored before, not why Richard shunned her bed but why his physicians advised him to do so.

Taking the Croyland chronicle as gospel is, of course, not as bad as taking Vergil or More as fact, but it's a serious mistake. He's contradicted in some places by other contemporary sources, such as Mancini and Rous (neither of whom can be fully trusted, either) and by other documents such as the Mercers' Company records that I just cited. Moreover, he seems to know more of Tudor's doings and less of Richard's than he would if he were still a court official during Richard's reign. There are various theories as to who he was. (The idea that he was Richard's chancellor, John Russell, who would have been much more knowledgeable and would not have criticized policies that he had a part in making, has been largely discredited.)

The sources (other than official records and court documents) have to be read for bias and reliability. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance them against, only the evidence of Richard's actions and words. If you're in Britain, you may have access to the Harleian manuscripts and York records. If so, I suggest looking there for the real Richard.

Meantime, if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Annette Carson's book. Wait till the new edition comes out unless you can afford to spend more than a hundred pounds on a used book.

Carol

The trouble is that being disliked by someone isn't proof you never did any of the things they say you did. If that were true history would be a lot simpler to decode. Croyland's bias is obvious indeed, but does that mean everything he says about Richard is untrue? Alas, logic would dictate otherwise.

You ask if the fact Richard's court remained at Westminster throughout Anne's illness is evidence that Richard loved her. -

I'm afraid an unbiased answer to that would have to be... "not really." There obviously could be numerous reasons for this geographical location, including (possibly) his wish to remain near his dying wife, but it would be hard to conclude anything very firm on this basis alone. This is not to say he didn't love his wife. I mean who am I to presume any opinion on that either way? It's just to say the fact his court remained at Westminster while she was dying can't be called good evidence of that.




--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Croyland Chronicler, whoever he was, clearly did not like Richard. His perception of him is thus coloured by this as in his disapproval of the innocent fun of Anne and EoY exchanging clothes/wearing similar dresses. Probably this applies to his statement that Richard shunned Anne's bed when probably what happened was, as Anne became ill and worsened it would have been the most natural thing that Richard would no longer share her bed as both of them would have been disturbed. As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen

The sources are so flexible, they can be interpreted multiple ways. The human animal is driven to find answers, which means it analyzes, defines and organizes until it comes up with conclusions (and shoeboxes) it likes or at least can live with...which is part of why scholars analyze what's known about Richard, his life and circle, and novelists create things based on what is known about him.

Love takes many forms, and not always the physical. I've no doubt Richard loved his niece. The form of that love is what everyone has been and will be debating for years.

In The Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter from EofY to Norfolk, which includes the insertion of modern punctuation in a way that supports her interpretation of the letter. Another interpreter might insert punctuation in another way (or leave it out completely as Elizabeth did) to support their interpretation.

Other sources lend themselves to further interpretation regarding the relationship between R and E of Y. For example, I could take the book in which Richard and Elizabeth's autographs appear together and argue that this is evidence of an intellectual relationship between them (or at the very least a shared love of books). I might extrapolate from this "evidence" that they sat together and discussed the topic of the book, and Richard delivered his copy as a gift to Elizabeth.

I could also argue that Richard's books fell into H7's/MB's hands after his death, and Elizabeth ended up with that book because H7/MB didn't want it, and there is no evidence of an intellectual relationship between R and Eof Y.

Ancient Greek had four distinct words for love: agápe (general affection), éros (sensual desire and longing; can be, but does not have to be, sexual), philía (dispassionate virtuous love), and storgē (natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring). I could take the contemporary sources for Richard and Elizabeth's alleged relationship and interpret those sources to fit all four of those words.

When one adds the Croyland Chronicle into the mix, and the chronicler's ignorance of the marriages being negotiated in Portugal for Richard and Elizabeth, one can interpret the sources a whole other way -- such as, "The Chronicle was based on gossip and hearsay a well as facts. It is interesting that even as the chronicler's source presents himself as having been entirely ignorant of the Portuguese marriage negotiations, the chronicler's source also presents himself as being intimately aware of conversations that took place between Richard and his councilors. One might ask how such ignorance and intimate knowledge of Richard's court could exist side by side, and whether the source deliberately held back some facts in order to manipulate the Chronicle through carefully shared gossip and hearsay."

In the end, Richard did not marry his niece. One can decide his motives for *not* marrying her might have been:

1. The North would have turned on him.

2. His councilors talked him out of it.

3. He wanted to, but it wasn't politically expedient.

4. He told the truth when he said that the thought never occurred to him.

I find it somewhat ironic that we have Richard's own, personal account of so little in his life, yet in this instance we have an original source in the form of his own words -- delivered in public -- on the matter of his allegedly wanting to marry Elizabeth. And still, we question whether what he said was truth or a politically expedient lie.

~Weds



--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
>
> On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
>
> I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
>
> Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.

You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is common sense...

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Take away the Tudor spin and you have physicians ordering a king not to sleep with his dying king for the sake of his own health and, by implication, the safety of the kingdom.
>

> Taking the Croyland chronicle as gospel is, of course, not as bad as taking Vergil or More as fact, but it's a serious mistake.

I usually am more inclined to believe some of what the old boy says, as it sounds as if were there on some of the occasions, but as I have said...he did not like Richard and this would colour his perception of Richard's actions. Fraction in he sounds quite a spiteful person and probably suffered from painful piles....

This book can still be had on UK Amazon for £11 for the paperback....
> Meantime, if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Annette Carson's book. Wait till the new edition comes out unless you can afford to spend more than a hundred pounds on a used book.
>
> Carol

Eileen
>

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems to me Croyland gives us the scenario, so we don't need to invent one of our own.
>

But he wasn't there. Why do we assume the Croyland version is based on the facts that would have given rise to the rumours, instead of the Croyland version being built around the rumours themselves?

> 5. "a little before Easter" Richard makes a public denial of his intentions to marry his niece, and from then on we can assume the idea - if it ever existed - was effectively dead.
>

To be honest, I can't help thinking the public denial was more inspired by and directed at the rumour that he'd poisoned his wife. After all, the fact that he wasn't planning to marry Elizabeth would be made apparent when he married someone else instead...

> I'm not sure what seems so implausible tbh, and I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't seem to abandon his sick wife." Croyland specifically says he stopped sleeping with his wife when she was sick, which is the only evidence I know of on the subject.
>

I was going by the itinerary dates posted by Eileen, which I thought was a pretty good point. But even if you remove the 'doesn't seem to abandon his sick wife', my point remains the same.

> And let's bear in mind, if the Croyland timeline is true, the idea of marriage to EoY was only in the air for a few weeks or months, and only being discussed by the king's most trusted advisors, so the Portuguese negotiation may have been started before this was an issue, or started as a blind by Richard to throw his enemies off the scent, or simply be an example of statesmen keeping options open. After all, kings would often be negotiating multiple marriage options at one time wouldn't they.
>

But this, again, means that we have to accept the Croyland version as the truth.

So if I understand correctly, the options would have been:

(a) There were just Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations all along.
(b) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but at some point Richard got distracted and went off on a crazy tangential idea of marrying his niece, and then went back to the Portuguese plans.
(c) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but these were just a ploy to distract people from his *real* plan of marrying his niece, but then he realised his real plan was a bit of a lousy plan so the ploy hastily became his plan B.

I know what seems most plausible to me, and it isn't (b) or (c), to be honest...

> It's surely to Richard's credit, that, if he did very much want to marry EoY, that in the end he didn't do it.
>

Dunno... I don't usually give kings and politicians much credit for doing what they need to do, for the sake of self-preservation.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not
> what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is
> common sense...

Yes, but that's not what it says. It says he was advised not to share a bed
by *his* physicians.

It's not necessarily true, either. Poeple have diffrerent mileages for
these things, but a friend of mine died recently and so far as I know
(because he was too ill to talk in the last ten days or so of his life) he
shared a bed with his wife to the end and would have been devastated not to.

I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.

Col

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
.......
> >
> > Not in so many words, afaik, but we have Richard's own words, recorded by
> > the Mercers, that he was as sorry at Ann's death as it was possible for a
> > man to be, and there's the source - is it Croyland? - which says that he
> > continued to visit Ann every night even when she was sick, and had to be
> > barred from her bed by his doctors to protect him from infection -
> > suggesting that he himself had been willing to risk his own death to go to
> > her - and that he wept openly at her funeral and had to shut himself away
> > for three days afterwards.
> >


>
> There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said before - anyone know the source?
>

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Well, there was Afonso V of Portugal, who married Juana "la Beltraneja",
> daughter of his sister Juana of Portgual - who, regardless of whether or
> not Enrique IV of Castile was her father, was undoubtedly the daughter of
> Afonso's sister.
>


These are fascinating tidbits - thank you.

About the marriage above, ever-so-reliable Wikipedia says:

'Afonso was first married to his cousin Isabella of Coimbra in 1447. Isabella died in 1455 and Afonso married again (although not recognized by the Papacy) in 1475, this time to Joanna of Castile (known as "La Beltraneja"), daughter of Henry IV of Castile and Joan of Portugal.'

Is that 'not recognised by the Papacy' bit completely false?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not
> > what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is
> > common sense...
>
> Yes, but that's not what it says. It says he was advised not to share a bed
> by *his* physicians.

I know that is not what it says...presuming you mean CC. He could have indeed been advised not to share Anne's bed...but I am saying that putting that to one side for the moment, people do not share the bed of someone in the grips of a fatal illness. I see you say your friend did...but I think in general I dont believe it is a common practice.
IF Anne did die from TB it would not have been possible casting aside the fact of what her doctors said. She would have had night sweats as well as that awful awful cough. What use would it have been to either of them...Richard would probably have become ill himself through lack of sleep. Of course one can never say never...as in your friends case...but in Anne's case..she would have had attendants...I doubt if she was ever left alone. Unlike King Edward Vll, the Queen's father...oooooooops I digress....slapped wrist for me...Eileen





> It's not necessarily true, either. Poeple have diffrerent mileages for
> these things, but a friend of mine died recently and so far as I know
> (because he was too ill to talk in the last ten days or so of his life) he
> shared a bed with his wife to the end and would have been devastated not to.
>

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:

> But he wasn't there. Why do we assume the Croyland version is based on the facts that >would have given rise to the rumours, instead of the Croyland version being built around >the rumours themselves?


If we're going to be completely accurate we have to say we don't know if the Croyland Chronicler was there or not - because we don't know who he was. If he was a prominent dignitary of the time then it's possible he was either present at some of these events or knew men who were.

But at any rate I've managed to put over the wrong idea. When I said CC provided a scenario, I wasn't saying I necessarily believed it, just that it does provide a scenario, so we don't need to imagine one - as you were doing.


> But this, again, means that we have to accept the Croyland version as the truth.


No, it means we acknowledge it as a *possible* version of the truth, or as containing some possible truth. To me this is the only reasonable way to proceed. Dismissing it out of hand, as some do, is just as anti-rational as believing it without question in the way Weir seems to.


> So if I understand correctly, the options would have been:
>
> (a) There were just Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations all along.
> (b) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but at some point Richard got distracted and went off on a crazy tangential idea of marrying his niece, and then went back to the Portuguese plans.
> (c) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but these were just a ploy to distract people from his *real* plan of marrying his niece, but then he realised his real plan was a bit of a lousy plan so the ploy hastily became his plan B.
>
> I know what seems most plausible to me, and it isn't (b) or (c), to be honest...

From my experience of medieval royal politics they all sound entirely plausible. In the medieval period it was commonplace for states to be negotiating marriages or marriage treaties with more than one other nation at once. Most such negotiations would come to nothing and a good percentage were never intended to. They were just another aspect of the complex diplomacy going on all the time. Marriage treaties could be dangled like a carrot to entice co-operation, later to be withdrawn when the politics changed; they could be used for leverage or brandished as a threat. To suggest the fact there were ongoing marriage negotiations with Portugal somehow rules out any other possible marriage ideas for EoY is just not compatible with the way such things were done in the 15th C. IMO.


> Dunno... I don't usually give kings and politicians much credit for doing what they need to do, for the sake of self-preservation.


Aaww, c'mon ease up on him a little. The poor man had lost his son, lost his wife, so *if* he was really forced to give up another someone he might have loved then it can't have been an easy time for him.

Also Carol, I believe, and I am sure that you will know, that the letter that Buck purportedly saw no longer exists, well no one has ever found it. So we are left with something that an elderly man remembered having seen. We cannot make assumptions about whether Richard had "an affair" with E of Y because we do not have any evidence to prove that he did. I would imagine that he would be quite fond of Elizabeth, I am very fond of my nieces and nephews and I have no reason to believe that Richard would not have been fond of his nieces and nephews too but not in a sexual way. That is one of the reasons that I think that Richard did not murder the Princes, but sent them away somewhere out of the clutches of MB and the Tudors. However, I cannot say that definitely because we do not have any evidence. I don't think that we have evidence to say exactly what was wrong with Ann and why Richard was banned from her bed. For people to think that it was an excuse for him to stay away because he was having an affair with E of Y is ludicrous. He would have to be very psychologically flawed to make Elizabeth and her brothers illegitimate and then to suddenly decide he was going to make this illegitimate young woman his Queen when her brothers were barred from the throne. Richard must have been distraught when Edward and Ann died but his sense of duty would have forced him to go on for the good of the country. All the other evidence that we have of his reign is that he was concerned about the people and the country.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
> >
> > On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
> >
> > I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
> >
> > Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Your speculation that Richard may have loved his niece is also straying beyond the sources. Buck presents Elizabeth as having a passion for her uncle (a possible misreading or misremembering of the letter), not vice versa, and the Croyland commentator, who was no longer at court, repeats (and believes) the rumors spread by Tudor supporters that Richard intended to *marry* Elizabeth of York, clearly unaware of the marriage negotiations with Spain and Portugal. As the only basis for such a marriage, which would bring no benefit to Richard (financial, political, or dynastic), must be "an incestuous passion," the chronicler assumes that this is the case. His assertion that Richard was bullied out of the marriage by Catesby and Ratcliffe is simply nonsense. Richard had much better reasons for not contemplating such a marriage, notably that it would undermine his own claim as stated in Titulus Regius.
>
> The historical sources do not lead us to any such conclusion. It's essential to consider the unreliability and bias of the Croyland chronicler and the many gaps in his knowledge. (He actually has Henry charging Richard at Bosworth, for example.)
>
> The historical documents actually lead us in a completely different direction, the *fact* that Edward Brampton was in Portugal negotiating a marriage for Richard soon after his wife's death being one of them. And while the Croyland chronicler, who wasn't present, presents Richard's denial of poisoning his wife and wishing to marry his niece as consummate hypocrisy, the Mercer's account shows a very different Richard:
>
> ""[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).
>
> If we trust a historical source, I suggest that it be this eyewitness account, which objectively records what Richard actually said and not the account of an enemy like the Croyland chronicler, whose errors make clear that he is reporting at secondhand from Tudor sources.
>
> Carol
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I
> have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but
> really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.

It was definitely being quoted as a known thing in a Victorian book which I
would say from the look of it must have been printed before the spread of
photography. Say, 1860? So the story must have been established at least
by the early 19th C.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is common sense...


I don't disagree with you but there's an important point we might be missing. We assume they all knew she was dying - because she died. But it's possible that throughout her illness, or at least in the early stages of it, she wasn't expected to die at all.

It depends what she was suffering from. I wish there was some sort of contemporary evidence to at least narrow the possibilities down.

Who was it that wrote that when Richard revealed his 'withered' arm to everyone at the Council meeting saying that the Queen had caused it by sorcery but that everyone there knew that was a lie and the arm had been withered for a long time...was it More or CC?
Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Also Carol, I believe, and I am sure that you will know, that the letter that Buck purportedly saw no longer exists, well no one has ever found it. So we are left with something that an elderly man remembered having seen. We cannot make assumptions about whether Richard had "an affair" with E of Y because we do not have any evidence to prove that he did. I would imagine that he would be quite fond of Elizabeth, I am very fond of my nieces and nephews and I have no reason to believe that Richard would not have been fond of his nieces and nephews too but not in a sexual way. That is one of the reasons that I think that Richard did not murder the Princes, but sent them away somewhere out of the clutches of MB and the Tudors. However, I cannot say that definitely because we do not have any evidence. I don't think that we have evidence to say exactly what was wrong with Ann and why Richard was banned from her bed. For people to think that it was an excuse for him to stay away because he was having an affair with E of Y is ludicrous. He would have to be very psychologically flawed to make Elizabeth and her brothers illegitimate and then to suddenly decide he was going to make this illegitimate young woman his Queen when her brothers were barred from the throne. Richard must have been distraught when Edward and Ann died but his sense of duty would have forced him to go on for the good of the country. All the other evidence that we have of his reign is that he was concerned about the people and the country.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > "angelalice75" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
> > >
> > > On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
> > >
> > > I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
> > >
> > > Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Your speculation that Richard may have loved his niece is also straying beyond the sources. Buck presents Elizabeth as having a passion for her uncle (a possible misreading or misremembering of the letter), not vice versa, and the Croyland commentator, who was no longer at court, repeats (and believes) the rumors spread by Tudor supporters that Richard intended to *marry* Elizabeth of York, clearly unaware of the marriage negotiations with Spain and Portugal. As the only basis for such a marriage, which would bring no benefit to Richard (financial, political, or dynastic), must be "an incestuous passion," the chronicler assumes that this is the case. His assertion that Richard was bullied out of the marriage by Catesby and Ratcliffe is simply nonsense. Richard had much better reasons for not contemplating such a marriage, notably that it would undermine his own claim as stated in Titulus Regius.
> >
> > The historical sources do not lead us to any such conclusion. It's essential to consider the unreliability and bias of the Croyland chronicler and the many gaps in his knowledge. (He actually has Henry charging Richard at Bosworth, for example.)
> >
> > The historical documents actually lead us in a completely different direction, the *fact* that Edward Brampton was in Portugal negotiating a marriage for Richard soon after his wife's death being one of them. And while the Croyland chronicler, who wasn't present, presents Richard's denial of poisoning his wife and wishing to marry his niece as consummate hypocrisy, the Mercer's account shows a very different Richard:
> >
> > ""[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).
> >
> > If we trust a historical source, I suggest that it be this eyewitness account, which objectively records what Richard actually said and not the account of an enemy like the Croyland chronicler, whose errors make clear that he is reporting at secondhand from Tudor sources.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Well said Eileen.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Croyland Chronicler, whoever he was, clearly did not like Richard. His perception of him is thus coloured by this as in his disapproval of the innocent fun of Anne and EoY exchanging clothes/wearing similar dresses. Probably this applies to his statement that Richard shunned Anne's bed when probably what happened was, as Anne became ill and worsened it would have been the most natural thing that Richard would no longer share her bed as both of them would have been disturbed. As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> > > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > > the way you describe:
> >
> > Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> > as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> > there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> > her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> > So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> > couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> > became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
> >
> > Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> > was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> > or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> > caught mumps.
> >
> > > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > > before - anyone know the source?
> >
> > The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> > Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> > a modern invention.
> >
>

Eileen,
 
this is so true.  I know from personal experience that my father, who was ill for several years before his death, didn't want noise, people around etc and my brother (who was a only 12 when Dad died) and I were expected to be very considerate about who was invited home etc.  My parents also stopped sharing a bed because Dad was so ill (not with TB incidentally!)  but it certainly didn't mean my mother stopped caring for him.
 
Equally just because Richard stopped sharing a bed with Anne doesn't mean that he "abandoned" her in any real sense does it?
 
Liz
 
 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:23
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 
snip>  As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > the way you describe:
>
> Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
>
> Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> caught mumps.
>
> > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > before - anyone know the source?
>
> The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> a modern invention.
>

Thank you Mary...it is crystal clear to me...but I guess we are all entitled to our opinions. Eileen :0)

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Eileen.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Croyland Chronicler, whoever he was, clearly did not like Richard. His perception of him is thus coloured by this as in his disapproval of the innocent fun of Anne and EoY exchanging clothes/wearing similar dresses. Probably this applies to his statement that Richard shunned Anne's bed when probably what happened was, as Anne became ill and worsened it would have been the most natural thing that Richard would no longer share her bed as both of them would have been disturbed. As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> > >
> > >
> > > > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > > > the way you describe:
> > >
> > > Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> > > as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> > > there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> > > her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> > > So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> > > couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> > > became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
> > >
> > > Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> > > was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> > > or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> > > caught mumps.
> > >
> > > > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > > > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > > > before - anyone know the source?
> > >
> > > The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> > > Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> > > a modern invention.
> > >
> >
>

Liz..I can recall when my dear old dad was dying..cancer...I travelled quite a distance to be with him. I can still recall how hurt I was when I sitting by his bed ...he looked at me and suggested I go and sit with the rest of the family who were in another part of the flat. I guess he just simply wanted to be left to on his own to doze.

Re sleeping arrangements my mum had a changed the double to two singles so she still slept in the same room up until he passed away...but even then she never had a good night's sleep because she was waiting for any movement, even his hand, and she would be by his side immediately and it took a toil on her. Of course everyone's circumstances are different...but in a huge palace with attendants I cannot see the sense of Richard spending nights with a dying wife. Especially when he had to reign the next day...Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>  
> this is so true.  I know from personal experience that my father, who was ill for several years before his death, didn't want noise, people around etc and my brother (who was a only 12 when Dad died) and I were expected to be very considerate about who was invited home etc.  My parents also stopped sharing a bed because Dad was so ill (not with TB incidentally!)  but it certainly didn't mean my mother stopped caring for him.
>  
> Equally just because Richard stopped sharing a bed with Anne doesn't mean that he "abandoned" her in any real sense does it?
>  
> Liz
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:23
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> snip>  As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> > > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > > the way you describe:
> >
> > Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> > as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> > there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> > her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> > So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> > couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> > became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
> >
> > Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> > was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> > or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> > caught mumps.
> >
> > > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > > before - anyone know the source?
> >
> > The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> > Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> > a modern invention.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Weds it is ironic that when we do have Richard commenting on his life it is assumed he is lying.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The sources are so flexible, they can be interpreted multiple ways. The human animal is driven to find answers, which means it analyzes, defines and organizes until it comes up with conclusions (and shoeboxes) it likes or at least can live with...which is part of why scholars analyze what's known about Richard, his life and circle, and novelists create things based on what is known about him.
>
> Love takes many forms, and not always the physical. I've no doubt Richard loved his niece. The form of that love is what everyone has been and will be debating for years.
>
> In The Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter from EofY to Norfolk, which includes the insertion of modern punctuation in a way that supports her interpretation of the letter. Another interpreter might insert punctuation in another way (or leave it out completely as Elizabeth did) to support their interpretation.
>
> Other sources lend themselves to further interpretation regarding the relationship between R and E of Y. For example, I could take the book in which Richard and Elizabeth's autographs appear together and argue that this is evidence of an intellectual relationship between them (or at the very least a shared love of books). I might extrapolate from this "evidence" that they sat together and discussed the topic of the book, and Richard delivered his copy as a gift to Elizabeth.
>
> I could also argue that Richard's books fell into H7's/MB's hands after his death, and Elizabeth ended up with that book because H7/MB didn't want it, and there is no evidence of an intellectual relationship between R and Eof Y.
>
> Ancient Greek had four distinct words for love: agápe (general affection), éros (sensual desire and longing; can be, but does not have to be, sexual), philía (dispassionate virtuous love), and storgē (natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring). I could take the contemporary sources for Richard and Elizabeth's alleged relationship and interpret those sources to fit all four of those words.
>
> When one adds the Croyland Chronicle into the mix, and the chronicler's ignorance of the marriages being negotiated in Portugal for Richard and Elizabeth, one can interpret the sources a whole other way -- such as, "The Chronicle was based on gossip and hearsay a well as facts. It is interesting that even as the chronicler's source presents himself as having been entirely ignorant of the Portuguese marriage negotiations, the chronicler's source also presents himself as being intimately aware of conversations that took place between Richard and his councilors. One might ask how such ignorance and intimate knowledge of Richard's court could exist side by side, and whether the source deliberately held back some facts in order to manipulate the Chronicle through carefully shared gossip and hearsay."
>
> In the end, Richard did not marry his niece. One can decide his motives for *not* marrying her might have been:
>
> 1. The North would have turned on him.
>
> 2. His councilors talked him out of it.
>
> 3. He wanted to, but it wasn't politically expedient.
>
> 4. He told the truth when he said that the thought never occurred to him.
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that we have Richard's own, personal account of so little in his life, yet in this instance we have an original source in the form of his own words -- delivered in public -- on the matter of his allegedly wanting to marry Elizabeth. And still, we question whether what he said was truth or a politically expedient lie.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
> >
> > On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
> >
> > I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
> >
> > Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.
>

It's probably correct, but I'll have to check (at my day job now, so no can
do). Nancy Rubin, in my online bio of Isabel says "yet" about the
dispensation, which implies they eventually got one, but I'll have to make
sure.

The big problem would have been the basic legitimacy of Juana "la
Beltraneja". She has that unlucky title because it's entirely possible
that her father was not her mother's husband, Enrique IV of Castile, but
her mother's lover, Beltran de la Cueva. Her legitimacy was knocked around
by all sides, depending on what suited them. As Isabel had effected the
end of the civil war by persuading Enrique to recognize her as his heir,
'la Beltraneja" was a constant threat to her. Afonso married "la
Beltraneja" in the hopes of defeating Isabel and Fernando (this was very,
very early in their careers). This didn't work out, clearly. After this,
Isabel sat down with her Portuguese aunt, Beatriz, duchess of Viseu, and
hammered out a treaty, part of which relegated "la Beltraneja" to a
convent, for life. To the end, "la Beltraneja" continued to sign her
letters as "yo la reina". She died in 1530, outliving Isabel, Fernando,
and a good portion of their children.

The dynastic and political situation in Castile sometimes makes the Wars of
the Roses look like a walk in the park. Rozmital's party, journeying there
during the civil war between Enrique and Isabel's younger brother, declared
that Iberia was about as unChristian a place as could possibly be
conceived; Juan Pacheco, favorite, advisor and snake in the grass to
Enrique once told a papal representative to basically buzz off; Enrique
never said so much as "shame on you, Juanito." So it's entirely possible
that the Pope was feeling uninclined to help out a Castilian bride of
doubtful paternity.

Maria
ejbronte@...



On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , Maria Torres wrote:
> >
> > Well, there was Afonso V of Portugal, who married Juana "la Beltraneja",
> > daughter of his sister Juana of Portgual - who, regardless of whether or
> > not Enrique IV of Castile was her father, was undoubtedly the daughter of
> > Afonso's sister.
> >
>
> These are fascinating tidbits - thank you.
>
> About the marriage above, ever-so-reliable Wikipedia says:
>
> 'Afonso was first married to his cousin Isabella of Coimbra in 1447.
> Isabella died in 1455 and Afonso married again (although not recognized by
> the Papacy) in 1475, this time to Joanna of Castile (known as "La
> Beltraneja"), daughter of Henry IV of Castile and Joan of Portugal.'
>
> Is that 'not recognised by the Papacy' bit completely false?
>
>
>

The Tudor propagandists done their job very well didnt they...? Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Weds it is ironic that when we do have Richard commenting on his life it is assumed he is lying.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > The sources are so flexible, they can be interpreted multiple ways. The human animal is driven to find answers, which means it analyzes, defines and organizes until it comes up with conclusions (and shoeboxes) it likes or at least can live with...which is part of why scholars analyze what's known about Richard, his life and circle, and novelists create things based on what is known about him.
> >
> > Love takes many forms, and not always the physical. I've no doubt Richard loved his niece. The form of that love is what everyone has been and will be debating for years.
> >
> > In The Maligned King, Annette Carson interprets the letter from EofY to Norfolk, which includes the insertion of modern punctuation in a way that supports her interpretation of the letter. Another interpreter might insert punctuation in another way (or leave it out completely as Elizabeth did) to support their interpretation.
> >
> > Other sources lend themselves to further interpretation regarding the relationship between R and E of Y. For example, I could take the book in which Richard and Elizabeth's autographs appear together and argue that this is evidence of an intellectual relationship between them (or at the very least a shared love of books). I might extrapolate from this "evidence" that they sat together and discussed the topic of the book, and Richard delivered his copy as a gift to Elizabeth.
> >
> > I could also argue that Richard's books fell into H7's/MB's hands after his death, and Elizabeth ended up with that book because H7/MB didn't want it, and there is no evidence of an intellectual relationship between R and Eof Y.
> >
> > Ancient Greek had four distinct words for love: agápe (general affection), éros (sensual desire and longing; can be, but does not have to be, sexual), philía (dispassionate virtuous love), and storgē (natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring). I could take the contemporary sources for Richard and Elizabeth's alleged relationship and interpret those sources to fit all four of those words.
> >
> > When one adds the Croyland Chronicle into the mix, and the chronicler's ignorance of the marriages being negotiated in Portugal for Richard and Elizabeth, one can interpret the sources a whole other way -- such as, "The Chronicle was based on gossip and hearsay a well as facts. It is interesting that even as the chronicler's source presents himself as having been entirely ignorant of the Portuguese marriage negotiations, the chronicler's source also presents himself as being intimately aware of conversations that took place between Richard and his councilors. One might ask how such ignorance and intimate knowledge of Richard's court could exist side by side, and whether the source deliberately held back some facts in order to manipulate the Chronicle through carefully shared gossip and hearsay."
> >
> > In the end, Richard did not marry his niece. One can decide his motives for *not* marrying her might have been:
> >
> > 1. The North would have turned on him.
> >
> > 2. His councilors talked him out of it.
> >
> > 3. He wanted to, but it wasn't politically expedient.
> >
> > 4. He told the truth when he said that the thought never occurred to him.
> >
> > I find it somewhat ironic that we have Richard's own, personal account of so little in his life, yet in this instance we have an original source in the form of his own words -- delivered in public -- on the matter of his allegedly wanting to marry Elizabeth. And still, we question whether what he said was truth or a politically expedient lie.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Wednesday - I appreciate this summary and it's all quite possibly true. I also agree wholeheartedly with your reminder that for a king marriage was about the state and the bloodline and not about "lurve."
> > >
> > > On the other hand, doesn't it seem slightly unhistorical to assume Richard the man loved Anne the woman, and at the same time dismiss the idea Richard loved (or at any had a "passion" for) his niece, given that there isn't (so far as I know) one contemporary source that claims the former as a fact, while there are two sources, one roughly contemporary, that actually allege the latter to be true?
> > >
> > > I'm worried this is straying beyond interpretation into something like defiance of the sources.
> > >
> > > Please bear in mind I don't allege Richard didn't love his wife or that he *did* love his niece (or anyone else), only that this is where the historical sources, such as they are, actually lead us.
> >
>

Oh I so agree with that. To be terminally ill is so difficult, and take into account the overall knowledge about illness, Richard may have been advised NOT to share her bed, even if either had wished to.



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?



Eileen,

this is so true. I know from personal experience that my father, who was ill for several years before his death, didn't want noise, people around etc and my brother (who was a only 12 when Dad died) and I were expected to be very considerate about who was invited home etc. My parents also stopped sharing a bed because Dad was so ill (not with TB incidentally!) but it certainly didn't mean my mother stopped caring for him.

Equally just because Richard stopped sharing a bed with Anne doesn't mean that he "abandoned" her in any real sense does it?

Liz



________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:23
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


snip> As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > As you can see he does mention Richard shunning her bed, but not quite in
> > the way you describe:
>
> Not quite as somebody paraphrased it a few days ago, no. It's not as clear
> as it sounded before that he quit her bed reluctantly, although I think
> there's a fairly strong implication that it was expected that he would share
> her bed and that he had to produce a reason why he was no longer doing so.
> So whether he really withdrew from her on medical advice or because he
> couldn't cope with her sickness, there's a strong suggestion that until she
> became ill they had been regular bedfellows.
>
> Incidentally it's occurred to me that it's not absolutely certain that it
> was Ann who had the fertility problem. We know Richard had fathered three
> or four children by the mid 1470s, but for all we know, he could have then
> caught mumps.
>
> > There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him
> > locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said
> > before - anyone know the source?
>
> The idea of him weeping at the funeral was certainly mentioned in the
> Victorian history I can't remember the name of, so we at least know it's not
> a modern invention.
>

I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.

The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?

George...your king needs you....

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I
> > have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but
> > really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.
>
> It was definitely being quoted as a known thing in a Victorian book which I
> would say from the look of it must have been printed before the spread of
> photography. Say, 1860? So the story must have been established at least
> by the early 19th C.
>

Of course it isn't but when we know that CC was hostile to Richard then the law of probabilities would very much suggest that the Continuator, whoever he was, is putting the worst possible slant on any and all of Richard's actions.
 
To be honest, I think of the CC as the Daily Mail of its day - anyone who looks at that on anything like a regular basis will know that it presents every rumour   (be it about a royal, a missing child, a celebrity embroiled in a  murder case, etc, etc )  as "fact" until the next day  when it  then has to contradict itself because the facts show the rumour to be false.  (I am getting a bit OT now so will stop.)
 
 


________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 18:49
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 

The trouble is that being disliked by someone isn't proof you never did any of the things they say you did. If that were true history would be a lot simpler to decode. Croyland's bias is obvious indeed, but does that mean everything he says about Richard is untrue? Alas, logic would dictate otherwise.

You ask if the fact Richard's court remained at Westminster throughout Anne's illness is evidence that Richard loved her. -

I'm afraid an unbiased answer to that would have to be... "not really." There obviously could be numerous reasons for this geographical location, including (possibly) his wish to remain near his dying wife, but it would be hard to conclude anything very firm on this basis alone. This is not to say he didn't love his wife. I mean who am I to presume any opinion on that either way? It's just to say the fact his court remained at Westminster while she was dying can't be called good evidence of that.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Croyland Chronicler, whoever he was, clearly did not like Richard. His perception of him is thus coloured by this as in his disapproval of the innocent fun of Anne and EoY exchanging clothes/wearing similar dresses. Probably this applies to his statement that Richard shunned Anne's bed when probably what happened was, as Anne became ill and worsened it would have been the most natural thing that Richard would no longer share her bed as both of them would have been disturbed. As anyone knows who has ever had the experience of being around someone in a terminal illness, and I have, they really cannot sometimes be bothered with visitors. Too ill/weak to make conversation let alone share their bed with someone. It is quite stupid and unforgivable really for someone, Croyland, in this case to twist the facts, ie Richard not sharing Anne's bed while she was dying into something that that makes it look as if he were 'shunning' her while she lay dying. If
Richard had wanted to 'shun; Anne why did he merely not clear off somewhere else. I have posted dates from his itinery that show for the 3 months coering Anne's decline and death (Decemeber to end of March) he did not move from Westminster Palace, barring a few days when he went to Windsor....a short journey from London. Is this fact not evidence that points to the fact that Richard did indeed love and care for his wife. I believe the rest is Tudor propaganda. Eileen

Yes..that is true...I dont understand the reasoning behind it but it is the case. Also Weasle had to watch his Queen's coronation from behind a screen....Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.
>
> The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?
>
> George...your king needs you....
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: colyngbourne
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> > > I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I
> > > have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but
> > > really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.
> >
> > It was definitely being quoted as a known thing in a Victorian book which I
> > would say from the look of it must have been printed before the spread of
> > photography. Say, 1860? So the story must have been established at least
> > by the early 19th C.
> >
>

Carol :
Take away the Tudor spin and you have physicians ordering a king not to sleep with his dying king for the sake of his own health and, by implication, the safety of the kingdom. [snip]

Carol again:

"Dying wife," not "dying king." Darn fingers!

BTW, I think it was Kendall who got everyone thinking that Anne had TB when, in fact, all we know is that she was clearly dying by February (if the Buck letter is legitimate) and dead by mid-March. If she was ill at Christmas, she was certainly concealing it. That the physicians thought that Richard could contract the disease or otherwise be contaminated by sleeping with her seems clear, but the leap from there to tuberculosis or any other specific disease or disorder known or suspected to be communicable by physicians in 1485 is too great to be sustainable.

Carol

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

> The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it
> couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation
> says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to
> her funeral?

It's 30 years since I read it but I'm 99.5% sure that the aforesaid
Victorian book said that he walked with her coffin - either before or
behind, I forget which - on the way to her funeral, and wept in the street.
It also said that it was she who encouraged him to accept the throne. I
wish I could remember the title but I'm not sure it would help because I
don't think it gave its sources - I remember looking at the time. It had a
long section on Richard, teeny teeny type in double columns, large-format
book, no photographs, and I think multiple volumes. I can see them in my
mind's eye, I know where they were in the library - but I can't remember the
title :(

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
>
> But at any rate I've managed to put over the wrong idea. When I said CC provided a scenario, I wasn't saying I necessarily believed it, just that it does provide a scenario, so we don't need to imagine one - as you were doing.
>

Hmm, no, but we can imagine alternative scenarios to the CC one - surely? (Or did I miss your point? Probably did, I'm a bit cross-eyed from being at the computer all day!)

>
> No, it means we acknowledge it as a *possible* version of the truth, or as containing some possible truth. To me this is the only reasonable way to proceed. Dismissing it out of hand, as some do, is just as anti-rational as believing it without question in the way Weir seems to.
>

I'm not dismissing the Croyland Chronicler out of hand, certainly - just that in this particular instance he doesn't seem to offer facts so much as conjecture (and that's my conjecture!). He's basically saying that there were rumours, and Richard denied those rumours, but was lying. If he was right, for instance, that some councillors believed Richard was lying, then that says only that: that some believed he was lying. The only concrete assertion seems to be the bit about Catesby and Ratcliffe, but as the CC was demonstrably neither Catesby nor Ratcliffe, I can't see how he could claim with any certainty what they had privately advised. Indeed, perhaps they were the ones to advise Richard to make the public denial and then that got distorted later.

You said earlier that 'the trouble is that being disliked by someone isn't proof you never did any of the things they say you did', and that's very true - but being disliked by someone is inevitably going to colour the way that that someone interprets your actions and the rumours surrounding you.

I can certainly think of several people I wouldn't want to be *my* chroniclers, and the only remotely controversial thing I've done in my life is once absent-mindedly walking the dog in my pyjama bottoms... (For one thing, based on this sentence, the hostile chronicler would probably assume I wasn't wearing a top at all. ;))

>
> From my experience of medieval royal politics they all sound entirely plausible. In the medieval period it was commonplace for states to be negotiating marriages or marriage treaties with more than one other nation at once. Most such negotiations would come to nothing and a good percentage were never intended to. They were just another aspect of the complex diplomacy going on all the time. Marriage treaties could be dangled like a carrot to entice co-operation, later to be withdrawn when the politics changed; they could be used for leverage or brandished as a threat. To suggest the fact there were ongoing marriage negotiations with Portugal somehow rules out any other possible marriage ideas for EoY is just not compatible with the way such things were done in the 15th C. IMO.
>

True, but that would make more sense if Elizabeth were some politically advantageous match and Richard were simply testing the waters and comparing different options in a practical sort of way. These scenarios, in which Richard momentarily loses his mind completely and then miraculously recovers it equally suddenly, don't make sense in quite the same way. But that's just my opinion, of course.

>
> Aaww, c'mon ease up on him a little. The poor man had lost his son, lost his wife, so *if* he was really forced to give up another someone he might have loved then it can't have been an easy time for him.
>

Honestly, I give him a lot of credit and cut him a lot of slack... but in this particular scenario, I wouldn't be much inclined to give him credit. Feel sorry for the poor deluded soul, yes, but not give credit. I'm cold like that. ;)

pansydobersby wrote:
//snip//
"Or is it more likely that something - the Portuguese marriage plans, or
possibly Elizabeth's own behaviour, or the fact that Richard might have been
friendly with his niece, or all such things together, or some malicious
gossip - was simply misinterpreted and gave rise to the rumour?
I think it's a bit wrongheaded to think assume that 'there must have been
something scandalous in their behaviour to give rise to the marriage
rumours' when it might just as easily have been 'there was the marriage
rumour, which made people jump to conclusions about an incestuous passion'.
If we're just speculating that he *might* have privately felt a hidden
passion for her, well - by the same token we might speculate that he had a
hidden passion for Elizabeth Woodville or Buckingham..."

Doug here:
It's my belief that your first paragraph above is the explanation for the
birth of the "rumor".
Someone overhears, literally, something in passing along the lines of:
"(xm) the wedding plans of Richard and Elizabeth are going forward (xm)",
with the "(xm)"s representing what *wasn't* overheard.
People being people ("Guess what *I* just heard!"), that's all it would take
to start off such a rumor. Then, using good old "post hoc, ergo propter
hoc", that means there *had* to something behind the rumor. And we haven't
even gotten into how such a rumor could have been deliberately distorted by
anyone bearing Richard illwill.
The Croyland Chronicler's reporting of *facts* ranks, certainly in this
case, in reliability with Sir Thomas More and his use of "men say".
Buck is slightly better, but there's still the problem of punctuation and
the fact that Buck was giving *his* own interpretation of what Elizabeth's
letter contained and *not" a word-for-word citation. I can't fault any
historian for using either source, if that's all that was available at the
time they wrote. What I can, and do, find fault with is ignoring information
that doesn't support a particular thesis and may very completely disprove
previously known "facts".
Doug

Also I would not be surprised if Anne also encouraged him to marry again once she was dead...Anne would have known since the death of their son that it was not in Richard's best interest to be childless and that's putting it mildly. Probably caused her a lot of sadness and sleepless nights. Very sad story...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> It also said that it was she who encouraged him to accept the throne. I
> wish I could remember the title but I'm not sure it would help because I
> don't think it gave its sources - I remember looking at the time. It had a
> long section on Richard, teeny teeny type in double columns, large-format
> book, no photographs, and I think multiple volumes. I can see them in my
> mind's eye, I know where they were in the library - but I can't remember the
> title :(
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <

> I can't fault any
> historian for using either source, if that's all that was available at the
> time they wrote. What I can, and do, find fault with is ignoring information
> that doesn't support a particular thesis and may very completely disprove
> previously known "facts".
> Doug
>


I absolutely agree - but is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> but the leap from there to tuberculosis or any other specific disease or
> disorder known or suspected to be communicable by physicians in 1485 is
> too great to be sustainable.

Indeed, but we can rule a lot of diseases out on balance of probability on
the grounds that they would have taken a significantly longer or shorter
time, although tetanus and rabies would probably fit the sort of timescale
we're given. But TB is probably the most likely candidate because it was
common - and because of Richard's very consumptive-looking complexion.

And of course, it could be coincidence that she had one child fairly rapidly
and then no other - it might *not* be the case that she had a fertility
issue which was getting worse. Indeed, she might not have been infertile at
all - Richard could have caught mumps. It could well be coincidence that
her only child died young, because children died all the time. But a dead
child who wasn't an infant death and who had access to the best care, and a
mother who was fertile at first and then not, and an acute ophase of illness
which was evidently thought to be contagious and which lasted somewhere
between three weeks and three months, and a husband with an alarmingly
consumptive-looking complexion, is at least *suggestive*.

On the other hand the idea that she was poisoned might have arisen because
she had something involving intestinal pain.

Womb cancer maybe....bleeding...pain. Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > but the leap from there to tuberculosis or any other specific disease or
> > disorder known or suspected to be communicable by physicians in 1485 is
> > too great to be sustainable.
>
> Indeed, but we can rule a lot of diseases out on balance of probability on
> the grounds that they would have taken a significantly longer or shorter
> time, although tetanus and rabies would probably fit the sort of timescale
> we're given. But TB is probably the most likely candidate because it was
> common - and because of Richard's very consumptive-looking complexion.
>
> And of course, it could be coincidence that she had one child fairly rapidly
> and then no other - it might *not* be the case that she had a fertility
> issue which was getting worse. Indeed, she might not have been infertile at
> all - Richard could have caught mumps. It could well be coincidence that
> her only child died young, because children died all the time. But a dead
> child who wasn't an infant death and who had access to the best care, and a
> mother who was fertile at first and then not, and an acute ophase of illness
> which was evidently thought to be contagious and which lasted somewhere
> between three weeks and three months, and a husband with an alarmingly
> consumptive-looking complexion, is at least *suggestive*.
>
> On the other hand the idea that she was poisoned might have arisen because
> she had something involving intestinal pain.
>

About this story of Richard weeping at Anne's death and shutting himself up for days - I don't think a Victorian source can be regarded as any more reliable than a modern one unless it cites something contemporary, or near contemporary, with Richard.

Anyone have anything about that?


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
> > The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it
> > couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation
> > says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to
> > her funeral?
>
> It's 30 years since I read it but I'm 99.5% sure that the aforesaid
> Victorian book said that he walked with her coffin - either before or
> behind, I forget which - on the way to her funeral, and wept in the street.
> It also said that it was she who encouraged him to accept the throne. I
> wish I could remember the title but I'm not sure it would help because I
> don't think it gave its sources - I remember looking at the time. It had a
> long section on Richard, teeny teeny type in double columns, large-format
> book, no photographs, and I think multiple volumes. I can see them in my
> mind's eye, I know where they were in the library - but I can't remember the
> title :(
>

But what is there that actually supports or "proves" it either?  Nothing, just Croyland telling us there was a rumour - a rumour that Richard denied vehemently.
 
We are obviously looking at this from completely different angles - you ask for proof that Richard "wasn't" doing this, we ask for proof that he was.    You might as well ask for proof that Richard "didn't" poison Anne.  .  When there is no definitive proof either way, I will think the best of Richard because his actions over the course of his whole life suggest to me I can do so.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 20:40
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 

I absolutely agree - but is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"Taking the Croyland chronicle as gospel is, of course, not as bad as taking
Vergil or More as fact, but it's a serious mistake. He's contradicted in
some places by other contemporary sources, such as Mancini and Rous (neither
of whom can be fully trusted, either) and by other documents such as the
Mercers' Company records that I just cited. Moreover, he seems to know more
of Tudor's doings and less of Richard's than he would if he were still a
court official during Richard's reign. There are various theories as to who
he was. (The idea that he was Richard's chancellor, John Russell, who would
have been much more knowledgeable and would not have criticized policies
that he had a part in making, has been largely discredited.)?

Doug here:
Is there any possibility that the "Croyland Chronicler" was someone in
Russell's entourage? I'm don't recall exactly, but I thought Russell retired
from being Chancellor sometime well before Bosworth and, no longer being
Chancellor, he'd most likely have reduced the number of people in his
entourage. If so, then perhaps the "Chronicler" was just "a disappointed
office-seeker" who'd lost his position with Russell and hadn't gotten what
he though he should've from Richard? Or perhaps the "Chronicler" had been
the Tudor/MB/Morton mole in Russell's entourage? I find it hard to believe
there wasn't one.
Any of those speculations would explain the "Chronicler's" aversion to
Richard and would also give us a place to start looking for someone who'd
been in Russell's employ while Russell was Chancellor, but was no longer
there *after* Ruseell retired from that position.
It's just a matter of finding the paperwork, right? If only...
Doug

Exactly....Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
I will think the best of Richard because his actions over the course of his whole life suggest to me I can do so.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 20:40
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
>
> I absolutely agree - but is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand the idea that she was poisoned might have arisen because
> she had something involving intestinal pain.
>

*mumbles something about tuberculosis of the reproductive organs causing pelvic inflammation, which would easily be mistaken for intestinal pain... mumble, mumble...*

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But what is there that actually supports or "proves" it either?  Nothing, just Croyland telling us there was a rumour - a rumour that Richard denied vehemently.
>  


Exactly - it's just as unproven as the idea Richard loved Anne or murdered his nephews, or had a hand in the death of Clarence. All these crucial questions are unproven. Yet people tend to believe or disbelieve them based on their own personal inclination. I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.

I find it's a liberating approach to take, as when one adheres to a given theory so much energy is spent on defending it against its obvious deficiencies. As soon as we allow ourselves to believe nothing and yet permit every possibility - it gets more interesting and less stressful. :)

Marie would be able to answer your questions. It was discussed on here some time ago. And MB was a benefactress of Crowland/Croyland Abbey. According to Geoffrey Richardson in "The Deceivers" MB owned a house just a few miles from the Abbey. Im sure this link has something to do with CC dislike of Richard.

Try typing in the search box Margaret Beaufort Crowland and the messages will come up. I think Carol had some involvement....Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Doug here:
> Is there any possibility that the "Croyland Chronicler" was someone in
> Russell's entourage? I'm don't recall exactly, but I thought Russell retired
> from being Chancellor sometime well before Bosworth and, no longer being
> Chancellor, he'd most likely have reduced the number of people in his
> entourage. If so, then perhaps the "Chronicler" was just "a disappointed
> office-seeker" who'd lost his position with Russell and hadn't gotten what
> he though he should've from Richard? Or perhaps the "Chronicler" had been
> the Tudor/MB/Morton mole in Russell's entourage? I find it hard to believe
> there wasn't one.
> Any of those speculations would explain the "Chronicler's" aversion to
> Richard and would also give us a place to start looking for someone who'd
> been in Russell's employ while Russell was Chancellor, but was no longer
> there *after* Ruseell retired from that position.
> It's just a matter of finding the paperwork, right? If only...
> Doug
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > -Regarding it just being a one-sided crush of Elizabeth's, Croyland does specifically say, or at least suggests, that Richard had conceived "an incestuous passion for his said niece": [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> This is one of the topics that we intend to include in the FAQ. The Croyland chronicler, who was apparently away from the court by this time, is unaware of the marriage negotiations underway with both Portugal and Spain for a much better marriage for Richard (and a true union of the Houses of York and Lancaster since both prospective brides were descendants in a legitimate line from John of Gaunt (in contrast to Tudors descent only through the Beauforts).
>
> I've already noted in another post why it would not be in Richard's interest to marry or even consider marrying his niece, who had been bastardized along with her brothers in Titulus Regius (as the chronicler, who knew about the precontract, ought to have realized. Essentially, Richard would be undermining his own claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth--and all for nothing as there was no dynastic or political advantage in marrying her, not to mention the opprobrium he would face for marrying his niece.
>
> If you're interested, you can search for recent posts on Elizabeth of York. I can't go back over everything that has already been said, but it will appear in the FAQ.
>
> (Neil, I volunteer for that particular topic.)
>
> Carol
>


Don't you agree though it would be overstepping the mark to use the two potential marriages with Spain and Portugal as a reason for categorically dismissing the possibility Richard was also contemplating a marriage with his niece. I suspect some non-Ricardian will be quick to point out that if there were already two negotiations afoot then why not a third.

I think all you can do here is talk in terms of maybes. Too-strenuous an effort to "defend" Richard with faux certitude can tend to have a rebound effect and make one seem slightly desperate and too inclined to see things in unhistorical black and white.

I hope you take a more open line and leave your FAQ in those annoying but real-life shades of muddy grey :)

________________________________

From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@...

 
. I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
 
Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?



> I find it's a liberating approach to take, as when one adheres to a given
> theory so much energy is spent on defending it against its obvious
> deficiencies. As soon as we allow ourselves to believe nothing and yet
> permit every possibility - it gets more interesting and less stressful. :)

Yes - but unless you're writing Alternative Reality fiction, having launched
a theory you need to test it against the evidence. Part of the evidence is
whether it would be a sensible thing for the person to do, and whether that
person has a hsitory of acting sensibly or wildly.

In this case, marrying Elizabeth would be clearly disadvantageous *and it
would be obvious to Richard at the time* that it was disadvantageous, since
he would have to either marry a bastard or re-legitimise Elizabeth and
undermine his own claim, either making one of her brothers king or, if they
were dead, making it obvious that they were dead under shady circumstances
he hadn't previously admitted to, and pointing the finger at himself as a
usurper. And it would make Elizabeth Woodville his mother in law and add to
her power.

Unlike George or Buckingham, Richard had a history of being quite
level-headed and sensible - I don't think we have any evidence of him
behaving daftly, at least not for more than a couple of hours at a time. So
we can say that a scenario in which he gives more than a passing
consideration to an action which would clearly be very disadvantageous is
highly unlikely.

As to whether we have clear evidence that he didn't intend to marry his
niece, other than the fact that it's a wildly unlikely thing for him to have
done, that depends on whether you believe Richard to have been an honest man
or a liar, and, if a liar, whether he was any good at it.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
________________________________
>
> From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@...
>
>  
> . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
>  
> Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
> E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 


But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?

Agree Carol. We have no proof at all what she died of. Goodness knows what it was. In medieval times there were very few cures for diseases. It could have been something that would be easily curable today. I think you have summarised the facts and the timeline very well and that is all that we know for sure.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol :
> Take away the Tudor spin and you have physicians ordering a king not to sleep with his dying king for the sake of his own health and, by implication, the safety of the kingdom. [snip]
>
> Carol again:
>
> "Dying wife," not "dying king." Darn fingers!
>
> BTW, I think it was Kendall who got everyone thinking that Anne had TB when, in fact, all we know is that she was clearly dying by February (if the Buck letter is legitimate) and dead by mid-March. If she was ill at Christmas, she was certainly concealing it. That the physicians thought that Richard could contract the disease or otherwise be contaminated by sleeping with her seems clear, but the leap from there to tuberculosis or any other specific disease or disorder known or suspected to be communicable by physicians in 1485 is too great to be sustainable.
>
> Carol
>

Claire M Jordan wrote:
//snip//
"However, the Buck letter, if indeed it refers to a sexual attraction
between Richard and Elizabeth and isn't just a rather overheated appeal for
him to get his finger out and get on with arranging her marriage to someone
else, suggests that the attraction was one-sided, or at least that Richard
was resistant to it. If he had been in a sexual relationship with
Elizabeth, why would she have needed to express her passion - twice! -
through an
intermediary, rather than directly to him?
Also - was it Norfolk she was writing to? I forget. If it wasn't, please
mentally delete "Norfolk" and insert the name of the appropriate person. If
her letter was about a sexual relationship and proposed marriage to Richard
himself, we have to assume that she thought Norfolk - not just an arguably
besotted and certainly desperately stressed-out Richard - might think that
it was a good idea and might urge the king to go along with it.
And whether she was right about that oir not she had evidently asked him the
same thing previously and he hadn't told her it was a ridiculous idea and
never to mention it again.
So for it to be true, we have to assume not only that Richard was behaving
stupidly but that Norfolk was as well, or that Elizabeth was behaving
stupidly and obsessively by thinking Norfolk might agree. Whilst not
totally impossible it's stacking up the improbabilities here.
//snip//

Doug here:
Precisely! If Richard and Elizabeth were carrying on, why does she need
Norfolk to get a letter to Richard? Honestly, the gullibility of some
"historians"!
Doug

Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.



________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
________________________________
>
> From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@...
>
>  
> . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
>  
> Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
> E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 

But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?

That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> ________________________________
> >
> > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> >
> >  
> > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> >  
> > Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
> > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 
>
> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
>
>
>
>
>
>

No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
 
 


________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 
That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> ________________________________
> >
> > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> >
> > à
> > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > à
> > Liz replied:à As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe oràdisbelieveà since they are either true or they're not.à Richard either planned to marry
> > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.à
>
> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
 
Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H 
 
 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


 

No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
 
 

________________________________
From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 
That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> ________________________________
> >
> > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> >
> > à
> > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > à
> > Liz replied:à As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe oràdisbelieveà since they are either true or they're not.à Richard either planned to marry
> > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.à
>
> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
>
>
>
>
>
>

No...not you at all....However dont let it drive you away....a lot of good people have gone already...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
>  
> Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>  
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > >  
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > >  
> > > Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

> Doug here:
> Precisely! If Richard and Elizabeth were carrying on, why does she need
> Norfolk to get a letter to Richard? Honestly, the gullibility of some
> "historians"!
> Doug
>

Hi Doug - this is Gullible "Historian" reporting for duty :)

I'd always assumed (if the letter is genuine) that Elizabeth was writing to Norfolk around the same time or just after Croyland has Catesby and Ratcliffe warning Richard his kingdom would fall apart if he goes through with his insane idea of marrying her. Which would be just before or after Anne's death. The date of late Feb would seem to fit with this, and also tie in with Croyland's claim that Richard made his announcement publicly denying his intention just before Easter, after Anne's death.

It actually fits quite well. If Richard has been shaken to his senses and is realizing he has to distance himself from this niece, and she's beginning to find it hard to get to see him, then the next step might be to get in touch with someone close to the king, who possibly is more sympathetic to the marriage than Catesby or Ratcliffe, and beg him to intercede, or at least tell her what is going on. And that someone might well be Norfolk.

As to the questions of whether they were physical lovers, and how dumb Richard would have had to be to risk such a thing, I don't know. Both Buck and Croyland seem to hint at some kind of sexual desire if not activity, but at this distance, what more can we say? The entire thing is just one possibility, neither proved nor disproved but grounds for interest and speculation :)

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: the vexed question of the Buck letter -
why would Elizabeth write to Norfolk?


> I'd always assumed (if the letter is genuine) that Elizabeth was writing
> to Norfolk around the same time or just after Croyland has Catesby and
> Ratcliffe warning Richard his kingdom would fall apart if he goes through
> with his insane idea of marrying her. Which would be just before or after
> Anne's death.

Yes, but in the letter she appears to be saying that this is the *second*
time she's asked Norfolk to intercede in this matter, so the first occasion
didn't work. If she's referring to a sexual liaison with Richard then he's
been resisting her for a long time.

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.

Carol responds:

I could have sworn that one of the great Ricardian scholars, someone like Rosemary Horrox or Anne Sutton, wrote a book on fifteenth-century royal funerals which suggests that, according to protocol, Richard would not have been present at his wife's funeral (unless. like Henry VII at Elizabeth of York's coronation, he sat behind a screen).

Eileen, do you know the book I'm trying to think of?

At any rate, it's a shame that Weir characteristically doesn't reveal her source when for once she says something good about Richard! She may be thinking of the open grief expressed by both Anne and Richard when they heard the news of their son's death or his openly expressed grief before the mayor and aldermen that I've cited several times. But I know of no document saying that he attended her funeral, only Croyland's admission that she received (surely on Richard's orders) a fitting funeral for a queen. (If he did weep for her, I wouldn't be surprised. The stiff upper lip hadn't been invented yet!)

Carol

Not quite at the fridge door yet!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:25
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


 

No...not you at all....However dont let it drive you away....a lot of good people have gone already...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
>  
> Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>  
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no.à It doesn't make more sense at all.à As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Liz replied:Ã’â¬aà As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orÃ’â¬aàdisbelieveÃ’â¬aà since they are either true or they're not.Ã’â¬aà Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.Ã’â¬aà
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

maybe just the coolbox?  :-)
 
I'm off to bed as it's too cold for refrigeration (and I have to be up at 6.30)
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:41
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 
Not quite at the fridge door yet!

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:25
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


 

No...not you at all....However dont let it drive you away....a lot of good people have gone already...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
>  
> Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>  
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no.à It doesn't make more sense at all.à As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Liz replied:Ã’â¬aà As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orÃ’â¬aàdisbelieveÃ’â¬aà since they are either true or they're not.Ã’â¬aà Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.Ã’â¬aà
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree there are times when you need to assert a POV. On moral questions for example, you have to find the courage to state what you believe. But this isn't a moral question, it's a simple question of fact, and if we don't have enough facts to prove whether X is true or false, what is the point in asserting a belief?

I'm fascinated by our Richard, and I tend to think on balance he probably didn't murder his nephews, because I can see better arguments against than for. But I'm turned off by any suggestion that the question is some sort of religious or moral one, where sides have to be taken and upheld. History is supposed to go beyond that kind of thing. It's the pursuit of truth for its own sake.


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no.  It doesn't make more sense at all.  As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > >  
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > >  
> > > Liz replied:  As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve  since they are either true or they're not.  Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't. 
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

angelalice75 wrote

"Don't you agree though it would be overstepping the mark to use the two
potential marriages with Spain and Portugal as a reason for categorically
dismissing the possibility Richard was also contemplating a marriage with
his niece. I suspect some non-Ricardian will be quick to point out that if
there were already two negotiations afoot then why not a third.
I think all you can do here is talk in terms of maybes. Too-strenuous an
effort to "defend" Richard with faux certitude can tend to have a rebound
effect and make one seem slightly desperate and too inclined to see things
in unhistorical black and white."
I hope you take a more open line and leave your FAQ in those annoying but
real-life shades of muddy grey :)"

Doug here:
Why insist on "shades of muddy grey" where there aren't any? There's no
proof, fevered imaginings to the side, that the rumors were anything other
than rumors, while we *do* have proof that Richard declared he had never
contemplated marrying his niece. One can't get more "black and white" than
that latter.
Royal marriages on the 15th century were matters of state. Richard was
either a widower or about to become one; ergo, he needed to remarry. Balance
the advantages and disadvantages of marriage to his niece against those of
marrying the sister of the King of Portugal and Elizabeth loses, hands down.
It's not even a contest.
The idea that Richard would contemplate marrying his niece simply isn't
supported by any of his previous actions, nor by what we know was occurring
at the time of Anne's last illness - those pesky negotiations for a bride
for Richard from Spain or Portugal.
The *only* written "support" for a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth
comes from a decidedly intrustworthy source - CC. When looking at CC's
reliability, you might wish to consider this: if CC *knew* what Catesby and
Ratcliffe advised Richard, why didn't CC know about the proposed Portugese
marriages? If Catesby and Ratcliffe *knew* about Richard wanting to marry
Elizabeth, why wouldn't they also know about the proposals for a Portugese
marriage? Or is it possible that CC did indeed know about the proposed
Portugese marriage and omit it? Then there's the question of why *did* CC
use the reasons he did? Was it because he knew full well that Richard had
never planned to marry his niece, that Richard *was* planning a foreign
marriage for himself (and Elizabeth) but, as those facts didn't support the
rumor, they were omitted? The "reasons" given by CC for Catesby and
Ratcliffe advising Richard not to marry his niece are so specious to anyone
who's looked into the matter that latter is certainly a valid question.
If you wish to think that Richard was willing to endanger himself, his
country and his inheritance by contemplating a marriage between himself and
his niece, go for it.
A word of advice: just because gossip and rumor may be written on parchment,
doesn't make those bits of gossip and rumor true. Just old.
Doug

Me too. Sleep well!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:45
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


 

maybe just the coolbox?  :-)
 
I'm off to bed as it's too cold for refrigeration (and I have to be up at 6.30)
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:41
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 
Not quite at the fridge door yet!

________________________________
From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:25
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 

No...not you at all....However dont let it drive you away....a lot of good people have gone already...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
>  
> Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>  
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them.   It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>  
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no.à It doesn't make more sense at all.à As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Liz replied:Ã’â¬aà As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orÃ’â¬aàdisbelieveÃ’â¬aà since they are either true or they're not.Ã’â¬aà Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.Ã’â¬aà
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> I agree there are times when you need to assert a POV. On moral questions
> for example, you have to find the courage to state what you believe. But
> this isn't a moral question, it's a simple question of fact, and if we
> don't have enough facts to prove whether X is true or false, what is the
> point in asserting a belief?

Because the likelihood of a scenario is also a fact. We can't say
categorically that he did or didn't do this or that unless we have
documentary proof, but we can say imo that it's a fact that it's very
unlikely that he did this or that, based on the likely consequences of his
doing this or that and his known behaviour patters. Probability is a thing!

"EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Who was it that wrote that when Richard revealed his 'withered' arm to everyone at the Council meeting saying that the Queen had caused it by sorcery but that everyone there knew that was a lie and the arm had been withered for a long time...was it More or CC?

Carol responds:

Definitely More. The Croyland chronicler gives only a very sketchy and possibly inaccurate account of the council meeting (which is why historians resort to More's fictionalized account). The Croyland chronicler, for all his hostility toward Richard, says nothing anywhere about any sort of deformity, not even the raised shoulder.

Carol

No Carol sorry I dont...but I have come across this several times over the years. Oddly enough this ruling did not apply when Richard ll at his Anne's funeral struck someone on the head who turned up late....

It seems to me that people can be very brave at funerals..is it because they are still in some sort of shock...but its later, when the guests have gone home and it sinks in that the tears fall...This period of grief can last a long time...years even.
Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eileen, do you know the book I'm trying to think of?
>
> At any rate, it's a shame that Weir characteristically doesn't reveal her source when for once she says something good about Richard! She may be thinking of the open grief expressed by both Anne and Richard when they heard the news of their son's death or his openly expressed grief before the mayor and aldermen that I've cited several times. But I know of no document saying that he attended her funeral, only Croyland's admission that she received (surely on Richard's orders) a fitting funeral for a queen. (If he did weep for her, I wouldn't be surprised. The stiff upper lip hadn't been invented yet!)
>
> Carol
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh I so agree with that. To be terminally ill is so difficult, and take into account the overall knowledge about illness, Richard may have been advised NOT to share her bed, even if either had wished to.

Carol responds:

Yes, that's the clear implication if we take Richard as speaking the truth in the Croyland account. He says exactly that, but the Croyland chronicler, who believes that Richard wanted to marry his niece, makes the physicians' sound like a lying excuse when it seems clear that they were trying to protect him. (No doubt the queen's physicians had an equal concern for their own patient, but CC says nothing about them.)

Carol

Maybe it was Richard III.: As Duke of Gloucester and King of England, written by Caroline A. Halsted and published in 1844, in two Volumes?

The 1484 problem is that he didn't ride or walk with her coffin to Westminster because tradition demanded that the king be nowhere in sight when the funeral was in process. (The experts will correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't t think there's any contemporary source that claims Anne encouraged him to accept the throne. Mebbe she did, but only the dried-up mouse in the wainscoting knows for sure?

~Weds


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> It's 30 years since I read it but I'm 99.5% sure that the aforesaid
> Victorian book said that he walked with her coffin - either before or
> behind, I forget which - on the way to her funeral, and wept in the street.
> It also said that it was she who encouraged him to accept the throne. I
> wish I could remember the title but I'm not sure it would help because I
> don't think it gave its sources - I remember looking at the time. It had a
> long section on Richard, teeny teeny type in double columns, large-format
> book, no photographs, and I think multiple volumes. I can see them in my
> mind's eye, I know where they were in the library - but I can't remember the
> title :(
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>

>
> Doug here:
> Why insist on "shades of muddy grey" where there aren't any? There's no
> proof, fevered imaginings to the side, that the rumors were anything other
> than rumors, while we *do* have proof that Richard declared he had never
> contemplated marrying his niece. One can't get more "black and white" than
> that latter.



That argument only works if you assume that if he *had* considered marrying his niece as Croyland claims then he'd have said so in public at this time. Do you think that's likely to be true?



> The idea that Richard would contemplate marrying his niece simply isn't
> supported by any of his previous actions, nor by what we know was occurring
> at the time of Anne's last illness - those pesky negotiations for a bride
> for Richard from Spain or Portugal.

Well, see my other posts about that. It was common place for royals to be engaged in multiple negotiations for different marriage partners, and the fact there were deals on the table from both Spain *and* Portugal makes that point for itself. In the real world none of this in any way makes it less possible that Richard toyed for a few weeks or month with the idea of marrying his niece.



> The *only* written "support" for a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth
> comes from a decidedly intrustworthy source - CC. When looking at CC's
> reliability, you might wish to consider this: if CC *knew* what Catesby and
> Ratcliffe advised Richard, why didn't CC know about the proposed Portugese
> marriages?


Just to offer a correction, we have no way of knowing whether Croyland knew about the Portuguese marriage negotiations or not. All we know is he didn't say anything about it. But why would he? He had a reason to talk at length about Richard's alleged plan to marry his niece, because it made Richard look bad. He had no reason to say anything about a possible alliance with Portugal because it didn't make Richard look bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't help us figure out how much of what Croyland did say happened to be true.


If Catesby and Ratcliffe *knew* about Richard wanting to marry
> Elizabeth, why wouldn't they also know about the proposals for a Portugese
> marriage? Or is it possible that CC did indeed know about the proposed
> Portugese marriage and omit it? Then there's the question of why *did* CC
> use the reasons he did? Was it because he knew full well that Richard had
> never planned to marry his niece, that Richard *was* planning a foreign
> marriage for himself (and Elizabeth) but, as those facts didn't support the
> rumor, they were omitted? The "reasons" given by CC for Catesby and
> Ratcliffe advising Richard not to marry his niece are so specious to anyone
> who's looked into the matter that latter is certainly a valid question.
> If you wish to think that Richard was willing to endanger himself, his
> country and his inheritance by contemplating a marriage between himself and
> his niece, go for it.
> A word of advice: just because gossip and rumor may be written on parchment,
> doesn't make those bits of gossip and rumor true. Just old.


Just for the record I don't in any way believe Richard wanted to marry his niece. I just don't believe he didn't either. I don't *believe" anything. I'm exploring possibilities. The reasons CC alleges Catesby and Ratcliffe used are specious indeed, and that question is worth investigating more closely.

This brings us back to the question at the beginning. - At the time Richard denied his intentions to marry Elizabeth, would it have been politically possible for him to do the opposite, and declare her his future bride? It seems to me the more foolhardy such a marriage would have been in reality, the more plausible CC's story is, and vice versa, the more possible it would have been for Richard to proceed with such a marriage, the more implausible CC's narrative looks.

Why was the dog in your pyjama bottoms?;)

----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?



--- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
>
>
> But at any rate I've managed to put over the wrong idea. When I said CC provided a scenario, I wasn't saying I necessarily believed it, just that it does provide a scenario, so we don't need to imagine one - as you were doing.
>

Hmm, no, but we can imagine alternative scenarios to the CC one - surely? (Or did I miss your point? Probably did, I'm a bit cross-eyed from being at the computer all day!)

>
> No, it means we acknowledge it as a *possible* version of the truth, or as containing some possible truth. To me this is the only reasonable way to proceed. Dismissing it out of hand, as some do, is just as anti-rational as believing it without question in the way Weir seems to.
>

I'm not dismissing the Croyland Chronicler out of hand, certainly - just that in this particular instance he doesn't seem to offer facts so much as conjecture (and that's my conjecture!). He's basically saying that there were rumours, and Richard denied those rumours, but was lying. If he was right, for instance, that some councillors believed Richard was lying, then that says only that: that some believed he was lying. The only concrete assertion seems to be the bit about Catesby and Ratcliffe, but as the CC was demonstrably neither Catesby nor Ratcliffe, I can't see how he could claim with any certainty what they had privately advised. Indeed, perhaps they were the ones to advise Richard to make the public denial and then that got distorted later.

You said earlier that 'the trouble is that being disliked by someone isn't proof you never did any of the things they say you did', and that's very true - but being disliked by someone is inevitably going to colour the way that that someone interprets your actions and the rumours surrounding you.

I can certainly think of several people I wouldn't want to be *my* chroniclers, and the only remotely controversial thing I've done in my life is once absent-mindedly walking the dog in my pyjama bottoms... (For one thing, based on this sentence, the hostile chronicler would probably assume I wasn't wearing a top at all. ;))

>
> From my experience of medieval royal politics they all sound entirely plausible. In the medieval period it was commonplace for states to be negotiating marriages or marriage treaties with more than one other nation at once. Most such negotiations would come to nothing and a good percentage were never intended to. They were just another aspect of the complex diplomacy going on all the time. Marriage treaties could be dangled like a carrot to entice co-operation, later to be withdrawn when the politics changed; they could be used for leverage or brandished as a threat. To suggest the fact there were ongoing marriage negotiations with Portugal somehow rules out any other possible marriage ideas for EoY is just not compatible with the way such things were done in the 15th C. IMO.
>

True, but that would make more sense if Elizabeth were some politically advantageous match and Richard were simply testing the waters and comparing different options in a practical sort of way. These scenarios, in which Richard momentarily loses his mind completely and then miraculously recovers it equally suddenly, don't make sense in quite the same way. But that's just my opinion, of course.

>
> Aaww, c'mon ease up on him a little. The poor man had lost his son, lost his wife, so *if* he was really forced to give up another someone he might have loved then it can't have been an easy time for him.
>

Honestly, I give him a lot of credit and cut him a lot of slack... but in this particular scenario, I wouldn't be much inclined to give him credit. Feel sorry for the poor deluded soul, yes, but not give credit. I'm cold like that. ;)

Richard's own words delivered before multiple witnesses in London don't support Buck or the CC. And if you won't believe the King himself....

~Weds

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
.
.
.
>...is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?

Yes. The documented Portugese plans with Brompton in Portugal fourteen days after Anne died. The only witness we know to be there at the time and who must be more reliable than others, by default: Richard himself.
----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?





--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <

> I can't fault any
> historian for using either source, if that's all that was available at the
> time they wrote. What I can, and do, find fault with is ignoring information
> that doesn't support a particular thesis and may very completely disprove
> previously known "facts".
> Doug
>

I absolutely agree - but is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?

WARNING: Horrible symptom of cancer ahead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There are specific symptoms that go along with this sort of cancer that probably would have been documented. Including the fact that Anne would have smelled as if she were decaying while she was still alive.

I'm sorry.

~Weds


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Womb cancer maybe....bleeding...pain. Eileen

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> Maybe it was Richard III.: As Duke of Gloucester and King of England,
> written by Caroline A. Halsted and published in 1844, in two Volumes?

That certainly wasn't the book I saw, but it could have been the source it
was using. This was either a general history of British monarchs or a
general history of London, I forget which. Richard occupied only a small
proportion of one volume, but because they were very large pages covered in
teeny tiny print it still amounted to quite a lot of text. They were in a
library which was up an alleyway off Fleet Street, but when the library
moved to new premises it evidently jettisoned some of its books including
those ones, because after it moved I could never find them.

> I don't t think there's any contemporary source that claims Anne
> encouraged him to accept the throne. Mebbe she did, but only the dried-up
> mouse in the wainscoting knows for sure?

That's why it's so frustrating that I lost track of the book, because of the
possibility that the author had had access to an unknown source. Who knows
what might be in some of the old Guild records?

Lol..Maybe Pansy and her dog got dressed in the dark...:0)

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Why was the dog in your pyjama bottoms?;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> >
> > But at any rate I've managed to put over the wrong idea. When I said CC provided a scenario, I wasn't saying I necessarily believed it, just that it does provide a scenario, so we don't need to imagine one - as you were doing.
> >
>
> Hmm, no, but we can imagine alternative scenarios to the CC one - surely? (Or did I miss your point? Probably did, I'm a bit cross-eyed from being at the computer all day!)
>
> >
> > No, it means we acknowledge it as a *possible* version of the truth, or as containing some possible truth. To me this is the only reasonable way to proceed. Dismissing it out of hand, as some do, is just as anti-rational as believing it without question in the way Weir seems to.
> >
>
> I'm not dismissing the Croyland Chronicler out of hand, certainly - just that in this particular instance he doesn't seem to offer facts so much as conjecture (and that's my conjecture!). He's basically saying that there were rumours, and Richard denied those rumours, but was lying. If he was right, for instance, that some councillors believed Richard was lying, then that says only that: that some believed he was lying. The only concrete assertion seems to be the bit about Catesby and Ratcliffe, but as the CC was demonstrably neither Catesby nor Ratcliffe, I can't see how he could claim with any certainty what they had privately advised. Indeed, perhaps they were the ones to advise Richard to make the public denial and then that got distorted later.
>
> You said earlier that 'the trouble is that being disliked by someone isn't proof you never did any of the things they say you did', and that's very true - but being disliked by someone is inevitably going to colour the way that that someone interprets your actions and the rumours surrounding you.
>
> I can certainly think of several people I wouldn't want to be *my* chroniclers, and the only remotely controversial thing I've done in my life is once absent-mindedly walking the dog in my pyjama bottoms... (For one thing, based on this sentence, the hostile chronicler would probably assume I wasn't wearing a top at all. ;))
>
> >
> > From my experience of medieval royal politics they all sound entirely plausible. In the medieval period it was commonplace for states to be negotiating marriages or marriage treaties with more than one other nation at once. Most such negotiations would come to nothing and a good percentage were never intended to. They were just another aspect of the complex diplomacy going on all the time. Marriage treaties could be dangled like a carrot to entice co-operation, later to be withdrawn when the politics changed; they could be used for leverage or brandished as a threat. To suggest the fact there were ongoing marriage negotiations with Portugal somehow rules out any other possible marriage ideas for EoY is just not compatible with the way such things were done in the 15th C. IMO.
> >
>
> True, but that would make more sense if Elizabeth were some politically advantageous match and Richard were simply testing the waters and comparing different options in a practical sort of way. These scenarios, in which Richard momentarily loses his mind completely and then miraculously recovers it equally suddenly, don't make sense in quite the same way. But that's just my opinion, of course.
>
> >
> > Aaww, c'mon ease up on him a little. The poor man had lost his son, lost his wife, so *if* he was really forced to give up another someone he might have loved then it can't have been an easy time for him.
> >
>
> Honestly, I give him a lot of credit and cut him a lot of slack... but in this particular scenario, I wouldn't be much inclined to give him credit. Feel sorry for the poor deluded soul, yes, but not give credit. I'm cold like that. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh God......IN A WAY I hOPE it was TB....Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> WARNING: Horrible symptom of cancer ahead.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> There are specific symptoms that go along with this sort of cancer that probably would have been documented. Including the fact that Anne would have smelled as if she were decaying while she was still alive.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Womb cancer maybe....bleeding...pain. Eileen
>

Weds - if I'd had the chance to sit opposite Richard, look him in the eyes, watch his body language, then I might feel able to take his word for things. But isn't it a bit naive to assume a man's public statements on a matter of public policy represent the be all and end all of his private thoughts?

Richard was - had to be - a politician as well as everything else. Just because he said the equivalent of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" does not mean we ought to believe him :)



--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Richard's own words delivered before multiple witnesses in London don't support Buck or the CC. And if you won't believe the King himself....
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >...is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?
>

I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?



Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.

Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H




________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?




No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them. It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....



________________________________
From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Frankly no. It doesn't make more sense at all. As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> ________________________________
> >
> > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz replied:ÃÂ As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orÃÂ disbelieveÃÂ since they are either true or they're not.ÃÂ Richard either planned to marry
> > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.ÃÂ
>
> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
>
>
>
>
>
>

She was way too young for a likely diagnosis of uterine cancer, at least in regard to present day demographics. Cervical cancer is more possible.

I think Pansy's idea of reproductive TB is very plausible and she deserves a round of applause for pulling that up.

But, tbh, there are so many potential things that could kill a young adult quickly back then - ordinary infective illnesses, kidney infections, uterine infections, suppurating teeth, appendiceal rupture. Basically, you can pay your money and take your choice.


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh God......IN A WAY I hOPE it was TB....Eileen
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > WARNING: Horrible symptom of cancer ahead.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > There are specific symptoms that go along with this sort of cancer that probably would have been documented. Including the fact that Anne would have smelled as if she were decaying while she was still alive.
> >
> > I'm sorry.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Womb cancer maybe....bleeding...pain. Eileen
> >
>

I think you'll find the historians stick to the facts, while the fantasy/romance novelists play with the possibilities. The former are annoyed by the latter, and the latter are free to go play with the possibilities.

If you keep poking into Richard's life and times, you'll soon discover that there's very little we can *know* is true when the Tudors/their circle were were motivated to manipulate and rewrite history.

When you have a man so insecure in his reign that he feels it necessary to lie and date the start of his reign as the day before the battle of Bosworth, then you have a king so insecure that he and his companions would not hesitate to lie about anything else that would make them look better.

Richard had to become a monster for Henry to be "worthy" of sitting on the throne. Otherwise, Henry had no reason for being there. Hence...the R3 labyrinth with no beginning and no end was created. We walk it when we try to figure out what and when and where and why Richard did...whatever.

Some wanderers walk with, "Only the facts, ma'am," as their mantra. Others walk with, "Wouldn't it be neat," or "What if...." Each kind of wanderer is on an entirely separate journey.

So, since the rule of law is to *prove* R3 did something beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than to *disprove* R3 did it, the scholars aren't going to play in "What if..." land for very long. They'll help you find your feet and answer your questions, but they're not going to follow us into Possibility Land because, to them, that's just another name for Imaginary and Wishful Thinking Land.

~Weds


--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:

> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?

angelalice75 wrote:


//snip//
"I'd always assumed (if the letter is genuine) that Elizabeth was writing
to Norfolk around the same time or just after Croyland has Catesby and
Ratcliffe warning Richard his kingdom would fall apart if he goes through
with his insane idea of marrying her. Which would be just before or after
Anne's death. The date of late Feb would seem to fit with this, and also tie
in with Croyland's claim that Richard made his announcement publicly denying
his intention just before Easter, after Anne's death."

Doug here:
Actually, if I recall correctly, the "reasons" according to CC, given by
Catesby and Ratcliffe against the marriage were completely self-serving. It
wasn't that the marriage would harm England, it would place Elizabeth's
*mother* in a position to act against Catesby and Ratcliffe! How EW was to
accomplish this, I have no idea and I don't think CC did either. Which tells
me that CC *didn't* know anything except the rumors, *did* know that Catesby
and Ratcliffe had been in positions to advise Richard and that Richard *had*
denied the rumors. Everything else is "spin".
I read Buck's letter as that of a young woman asking a favor of someone
close to Richard concerning a matter involving Richard and Elizabeth. Buck
assumed that meant Richard and Elizabeth were involved romantically in some
fashion or other, but then Buck didn't know about the Portugese
negotiations, either. Add those in and what, on the surface, can be read as
attempt by a young woman to advance her marriage to the king, becomes an
attempt by a young woman to advance her marriage - period.
If anyone want to imagine a liaison based on rumors and the interpretation
(how many years after the fact?) of the remembered phrasing/punctuation of
a letter, that's their right.
I would like to say that my disinclination to trust CC isn't because what he
wrote "demeans" some sort of idealized Richard, but because, to me at least,
it strikes at what is the basis of history: factual knowledge. If CC *did*
know what he was writing about, why doesn't that fit in with other,
verifiable, sources? Conversely, if CC didn't know what he was writing
about, why did he write it? And it's those parts that *don't* fit in that
throws a taint of unreliability on what's there.
Doug

Wow, well then I guess I'm alone in wanting to keep an open mind. That saddens me, but I hope it won't mean I'm not welcome. Richard is a very dear old "friend" to me, and I'm enjoying discussing him, even if I don't feel able to join in the prevailing belief here that all the mysteries are solved :)

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
> Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>
> Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
>
> Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>
>
> No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them. It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Frankly no. It doesn't make more sense at all. As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Liz replied: As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe or disbelieve since they are either true or they're not. Richard either planned to marry
> > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.ÂÂ
> >
> > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his
uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.

Yes, and what little we have of his writings and his speech e.g. to von
Poppelau suggests somebody passionate and outspoken rather than
mealy-mouthed. What little we have of his enthusiasm and his anger suggests
the complete reverse of More's "some men do say" insinuating tone, and when
he was devious he was devious by being obscure - "the fact of an enterprise"
and so on - that is, by not saying things, rather than by saying things
which were untrue.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> But, tbh, there are so many potential things that could kill a young adult
> quickly back then - ordinary infective illnesses, kidney infections,
> uterine infections, suppurating teeth, appendiceal rupture. Basically, you
> can pay your money and take your choice.

Yes. The appendix can probably be ruled out because it would be too
fast-acting, though, ditto septicaemia and food-poisoning.

Well remember, none of them was a paragon of hygiene. Maybe they detected nothing amiss - smell wise!!!!

On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Oh God......IN A WAY I hOPE it was TB....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> WARNING: Horrible symptom of cancer ahead.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> There are specific symptoms that go along with this sort of cancer that probably would have been documented. Including the fact that Anne would have smelled as if she were decaying while she was still alive.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Womb cancer maybe....bleeding...pain. Eileen
>

"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.
>
> The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?
>
> George...your king needs you....

Carol responds:

I wish he'd come back because we need his sense of humor. Just when we're most in need of aluminum foil, too!

I tried a site search for posts on Anne's funeral but couldn't find what we're looking for.

I did find a reference to tears in the Victorian biographer Caroline Halsted's account of Anne's funeral:

"The gorgeous manner, however, in which the obsequies of the deceased queen were solemnized, the magnificence of the funeral, the solemnity by which it was characterized, the tears which her husband is allowed to have shed when personally attending her remains to St. Peters, Westminster, near the high altar of which she was interred, with all honour befitting a queen . . . give proof that her decease "added not a little to the king's sufferings and sorrows" . . . . (p. 366).

Halsted manages to include five footnotes for this sentence (not including the part I snipped, which includes a favorable quotation from a biographer of Elizabeth of York). The relevant one (for Richard's tears) is one I've never heard of, Baker's Chronicle (p. 571). (The quotation about Richard's sufferings is from Buck.) Halsted's book was published in 1844. Baker appears to be Sir Richard Baker, a "chronicler of the English monarchs," who also evidently praises Richard's good laws, but that's all I can find out about him from a search of her book. (The whole thing is available on Google Books.)

If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up on posting!

Carol

liz williams wrote:
>
> Of course it isn't but when we know that CC was hostile to Richard then the law of probabilities would very much suggest that the Continuator, whoever he was, is putting the worst possible slant on any and all of Richard's actions.
>  
> To be honest, I think of the CC as the Daily Mail of its day - anyone who looks at that on anything like a regular basis will know that it presents every rumour   (be it about a royal, a missing child, a celebrity embroiled in a  murder case, etc, etc )  as "fact" until the next day  when it  then has to contradict itself because the facts show the rumour to be false.  (I am getting a bit OT now so will stop.)
>  
Carol responds:

At least he presents the rumor that Edward's sons had met a violent death as just that--a rumor. But, yes, he does seem oddly credulous on other occasions, notably the one we've been discussing.

One piece of evidence that he was away from the court is that he has Richard writing to the queen rather than the council after Edward's death. Mancini has "council," which fits Richard's actions (and EW's) much better. Can anyone think of other examples, aside from his criticism of spending that he would have been partially responsible for had he actually been a member of the council?

Carol

Carol

An atypical appendix can rupture, form an abscess and cause a fairly long debilitating decline that would mimic a lot of other infective illnesses - including some kinds of TB. You'd have night sweats, low grade fevers, weight loss, periods of partial remission maybe over weeks or months.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> > But, tbh, there are so many potential things that could kill a young adult
> > quickly back then - ordinary infective illnesses, kidney infections,
> > uterine infections, suppurating teeth, appendiceal rupture. Basically, you
> > can pay your money and take your choice.
>
> Yes. The appendix can probably be ruled out because it would be too
> fast-acting, though, ditto septicaemia and food-poisoning.
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was:
Richard Replacing Anne?)


> Halsted manages to include five footnotes for this sentence (not including
> the part I snipped, which includes a favorable quotation from a biographer
> of Elizabeth of York). The relevant one (for Richard's tears) is one I've
> never heard of, Baker's Chronicle (p. 571). (The quotation about Richard's
> sufferings is from Buck.) Halsted's book was published in 1844. Baker
> appears to be Sir Richard Baker, a "chronicler of the English monarchs,"
> who also evidently praises Richard's good laws, but that's all I can find
> out about him from a search of her book. (The whole thing is available on
> Google Books.)

Aha! Now, if Baker was a chonicler of monarchs, plural, then it's
exceedingly likely that his chronicles were the books that were in that
little library off Fleet Street, Just because it appeared to be a Victorian
printing, doesn't mean it was very recently written - it could have been the
30th edition for all I know.

I'll find that book on the history of the Macgregors yet....

Blast, I've just noticed it says "English Monarchs" - I was thinking
there'd be a copy in the National Library of Scotland but if he doesn't
cover the Scottish kings then probably not. We need somebody with access to
the BM Library in London, or the Bod.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> And of course, it could be coincidence that she had one child fairly rapidly and then no other - it might *not* be the case that she had a fertility issue which was getting worse. [snip]

Carol responds:

"Had one child fairly rapidly" if you use the old birth date of 1473, but most authorities now think that Rous was right in stating that he was just seven years old at his investiture as Prince of Wales, which would mean that he was born in 1476, about four years into the marriage. That leaves room for some miscarriages in between (though, of course, we don't know that they occurred). At any rate, since we know that Richard fathered at least three children, I'd say that the balance of probability is that the infertility problem was hers.

To return to Prince Edward, someone (I think it was Michael Hicks) wrote and article called "One Prince or Two" that was published either in the Ricardian or the Ricardian Register which presented evidence that Richard and Anne had another son in 1476 who was dead by the time that Richard became king and perhaps by the time his brother was born. I forget his arguments for the existence of this "prince" (or "dukeling"), but anyone with access to the Ricardian (or Register) can look it up.

Side note: I suppose the little boy (if he existed) could be called a prince since Richard himself was a prince of the blood royal (and was certainly referred to as a prince in his lifetime. Margaret of York referred to herself as a princess at least twice. Evidently, the term was (terms were) not merely used for the sons (and daughters) of a king in Richard's time but more loosely for a ruler with royal blood and his children. If so, Hicks would be following fifteenth-century usage in his title.

Carol

angelalice75 wrote:

"That argument only works if you assume that if he *had* considered marrying
his niece as Croyland claims then he'd have said so in public at this time.
Do you think that's likely to be true?"

Doug here:
If you're asking me whether or not I would expect Richard to have announced
his plans to marry his niece in public, no. Nor does CC say that. All CC
reports is that Richard publicly denied *rumors* about a marriage between
himself and his niece. Not the same at all. So, the argument *does* work.

"Well, see my other posts about that. It was common place for royals to be
engaged in multiple negotiations for different marriage partners, and the
fact there were deals on the table from both Spain *and* Portugal makes that
point for itself. In the real world none of this in any way makes it less
possible that Richard toyed for a few weeks or month with the idea of
marrying his niece. "

Doug here:
What advantage would a marriage to his niece bring Richard? None. What would
a marriage between Richard and a Spanish or Portugese Princess bring? A
military/diplomatic alliance, better conditions for trade and a re-union of
the Houses of York and Lancaster.

"Just to offer a correction, we have no way of knowing whether Croyland knew
about the Portuguese marriage negotiations or not. All we know is he didn't
say anything about it. But why would he? He had a reason to talk at length
about Richard's alleged plan to marry his niece, because it made Richard
look bad. He had no reason to say anything about a possible alliance with
Portugal because it didn't make Richard look bad. Unfortunately, that
doesn't help us figure out how much of what Croyland did say happened to be
true."

Doug here:
How is that planning on stiffing a foreign Princess, all the while knowing
you were going to marry your niece, wouldn't make Richard look bad?

"Just for the record I don't in any way believe Richard wanted to marry his
niece. I just don't believe he didn't either. I don't *believe" anything.
I'm exploring possibilities. The reasons CC alleges Catesby and Ratcliffe
used are specious indeed, and that question is worth investigating more
closely."

Doug here:
I work on the basis of verifiable sources and add to those. As Claire said:
"Probablilities!" If you wish to be existential about this, go ahead.

"This brings us back to the question at the beginning. - At the time Richard
denied his intentions to marry Elizabeth, would it have been politically
possible for him to do the opposite, and declare her his future bride? It
seems to me the more foolhardy such a marriage would have been in reality,
the more plausible CC's story is, and vice versa, the more possible it would
have been for Richard to proceed with such a marriage, the more implausible
CC's narrative looks."

Doug here:
"She just wouldn't make up her mind"
"Jennie" by Kurt Weill/Ira Gershwin

I've been searching in Buck for the quote about Anne's death adding to the king's suffering and sorrows - and a word search didn't turn up anything. Does she give any more detail about where it's found?

An odd thing about Buck is that he is at pains to say Richard was playing with Elizabeth's feelings, leading her on and never had any intention of marrying her, just wanted to turn her mind away from Tudor. It's an odd conclusion, and an odd way to portray a man he seems to want his readers to admire. TBH, the idea he was seducing his niece for reasons of statecraft is slightly less forgivable than if he was doing it for reasons of "passion."


I can't decide if Buck is just very honest if rather clueless, or a complete idiot and liar :)



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.
> >
> > The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?
> >
> > George...your king needs you....
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I wish he'd come back because we need his sense of humor. Just when we're most in need of aluminum foil, too!
>
> I tried a site search for posts on Anne's funeral but couldn't find what we're looking for.
>
> I did find a reference to tears in the Victorian biographer Caroline Halsted's account of Anne's funeral:
>
> "The gorgeous manner, however, in which the obsequies of the deceased queen were solemnized, the magnificence of the funeral, the solemnity by which it was characterized, the tears which her husband is allowed to have shed when personally attending her remains to St. Peters, Westminster, near the high altar of which she was interred, with all honour befitting a queen . . . give proof that her decease "added not a little to the king's sufferings and sorrows" . . . . (p. 366).
>
> Halsted manages to include five footnotes for this sentence (not including the part I snipped, which includes a favorable quotation from a biographer of Elizabeth of York). The relevant one (for Richard's tears) is one I've never heard of, Baker's Chronicle (p. 571). (The quotation about Richard's sufferings is from Buck.) Halsted's book was published in 1844. Baker appears to be Sir Richard Baker, a "chronicler of the English monarchs," who also evidently praises Richard's good laws, but that's all I can find out about him from a search of her book. (The whole thing is available on Google Books.)
>
> If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up on posting!
>
> Carol
>

The prevailing belief here isn't that all the mysteries are solved. The knowledgeable scholars and historians here say, "This is what the various sources say about [each mystery]. From the preponderance of evidence and after analyzing it and Richard's past deeds and patterns of behavior and policy, this is what I've come to believe."

The sources are complex, and they're spread across 527 years. They also contradict each other in many cases, and some are trustworthy while others are not. Some you may decide to trust in one place, but not in another (if another primary source backs up the first source). It's complex and frustrating and exhausting to try to make Richard/events black and white. There are too many players who wrote with too many shades of gray to ever do that. And if you're going to doubt Richard himself when he has made a statement...then I don't understand how you'll ever trust any contemporary source, except perhaps his writing "Loyaltie me lie" in his books.

Then again, what loyalty does Person A think bound him? What loyalty does Person B think bound him? Loyalty to his brother? Then one could argue he was disloyal to his brother's children, so perhaps he was loyal only to his own greed, or to the interests of the realm. Perhaps he meant to be loyal to his family and to destroy the possibility of the Woodvilles destroying his family if they gained power over E5. And we're off again, to list instances when he was loyal to [whoever/whatever] and debate and discuss again. Over three. little. Latin. words in the margin of a medieval manuscript.

Nothing is in black and white, everything is in shades of gray when you study Richard's life and the man himself. There's just too much we don't know. And we get exhausted chasing his tail and our own.

So yes, some people here have studied the sources and the man, and they've made up their minds on the "mysteries." They are generous and patient, and will share their research and knowledge with you and leave you free to make up your own mind. But if you continue pushing against the research and knowledge, asking things like, "But couldn't Richard have announced he was marrying Elizabeth instead of announcing he wasn't marrying Elizabeth" their patience will grow a little thin because Richard *didn't do that* in real life.

It's nothing personal. It's just that there are too many real mysteries to discuss/debate without dragging in a non-existent event.

If you want to talk about Thinges Richard from a writer's POV (e.g., discuss fictional scenarios with Richard-as-a-character), then there might be medieval England fantasy writers groups that would welcome that. But writers and scholars are two different creatures when it comes to discussing R3. The scholars don't want to spin imaginary tales about Richard -- they're already too busy trying to ferret out what's fiction and what's fact in the original sources.

Historians don't consider alternate history "possibilities" as possibilities. They see historical scenarios and pour over original sources. Possibilities outside the original sources belong to the fiction writer, not the historian. The historian can give you the historical foundation for whatever mystery you're investigating and save you a heck of a lot of research time. But when you want to use that foundation to play a writer's "what if" game... the historian doesn't want to play.

That doesn't make you or anyone else unwelcome here. It just means that you and they want to discuss Richard in a different way.

I hope that makes sense and somehow helps.

~Weds


--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, well then I guess I'm alone in wanting to keep an open mind. That saddens me, but I hope it won't mean I'm not welcome. Richard is a very dear old "friend" to me, and I'm enjoying discussing him, even if I don't feel able to join in the prevailing belief here that all the mysteries are solved :)
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
> > Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.

"angelalice75" wrote:
>
> Exactly - it's just as unproven as the idea Richard loved Anne or murdered his nephews, or had a hand in the death of Clarence. [snip]

Carol responds:

We know that only Edward argued against the Duke of Clarence and only Clarence spoke for himself. We also know that Edward gave Richard's office of Constable of England for this occasion only to the Duke of Buckingham, which could only have been so that Richard would not have to pass the sentence of death against his brother. We have Mancini reporting in 1483, late enough for rumors to the contrary to surface, that Richard was angered by the death of his brother, and we know that he left the court, to return only twice during Edward's lifetime, immediately after the execution. And we have Richard's words to the Earl of Desmond (actually to a bishop to be conveyed to the Earl of Desmond) stating that he believed his brother to have been murdered by the same people who murdered the earl's father when Richard was a boy. Not even More accuses Richard of anything worse than hypocrisy in protesting his brother's death. There is more than enough evidence to clear Richard of having anything to do with George's death. The Woodvilles, on the other hand . . . .

Carol

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> Doug here:
> What advantage would a marriage to his niece bring Richard? None. What would
> a marriage between Richard and a Spanish or Portugese Princess bring? A
> military/diplomatic alliance, better conditions for trade and a re-union of
> the Houses of York and Lancaster.



It would have denied Tudor the marriage that in many people's eyes would have validated his right to rule. That's Buck's reasoning anyhow. But then if we're talking about desire or "incestuous passion' then we aren't talking about rational motives.




> How is that planning on stiffing a foreign Princess, all the while knowing
> you were going to marry your niece, wouldn't make Richard look bad?
>

There was no dishonour in opening negotiations to marry more than one person at a time - which ought to be obvious to you since Richard was simultaneously negotiating marriages with Span and Portugal. Such political marriages were brokered and broken before being solemnised all the time.

I think it's a bit naive or cynical to assume EofY's uncle would find his brother's daughter sexually attractive in the first place. And entirely predictable for the times and the circumstances that someone would rumor it.

If you're not going to believe the King, I don't think any original source will convince you of anything. By that criteria, even the mundane recorded facts (like birth-dates and titles and all events witnessed by hundreds of people but recorded by a few) join the mysteries.

~Weds


--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Weds - if I'd had the chance to sit opposite Richard, look him in the eyes, watch his body language, then I might feel able to take his word for things. But isn't it a bit naive to assume a man's public statements on a matter of public policy represent the be all and end all of his private thoughts?
>
> Richard was - had to be - a politician as well as everything else. Just because he said the equivalent of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" does not mean we ought to believe him :)

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was:
Richard Replacing Anne?)


> If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to
> find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up
> on posting!

Here's Baker again referenced in "Facts and speculations on the origin and
history of playing cards" by William Andrew Chatto. This book was written
in 1799 so that pushes Baker back into the 18th C.

"Sir Robert Baker, in his Chronicle, states that in the eighteenth year of
Henry VIII a proclamation was made against all unlawful games, so that in
all places, tables, dice, cards, and bowls were taken and burnt; but that
this order continbued not long, for younbg men, being thus restrained, 'fell
to drinking, stealing conies, and other worse misdemeanours.'"

Now really - this is just about trying to get the group over the 6000 mark
for February messages isn't it? (Although by UK time, I guess it's already
too late).

A J

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM, wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think it's a bit naive or cynical to assume EofY's uncle would find his
> brother's daughter sexually attractive in the first place. And entirely
> predictable for the times and the circumstances that someone would rumor
> it.
>
> If you're not going to believe the King, I don't think any original source
> will convince you of anything. By that criteria, even the mundane recorded
> facts (like birth-dates and titles and all events witnessed by hundreds of
> people but recorded by a few) join the mysteries.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
> >
> > Weds - if I'd had the chance to sit opposite Richard, look him in the
> eyes, watch his body language, then I might feel able to take his word for
> things. But isn't it a bit naive to assume a man's public statements on a
> matter of public policy represent the be all and end all of his private
> thoughts?
> >
> > Richard was - had to be - a politician as well as everything else. Just
> because he said the equivalent of "I did not have sexual relations with
> that woman" does not mean we ought to believe him :)
>
>
>

angelica wrote:
> Don't you agree though it would be overstepping the mark to use the two potential marriages with Spain and Portugal as a reason for categorically dismissing the possibility Richard was also contemplating a marriage with his niece. I suspect some non-Ricardian will be quick to point out that if there were already two negotiations afoot then why not a third.

Carol responds:

Because there is no evidence of any such negotiations, and whom would he negotiate with? "Dame Elizabeth Grey, late calling herself Queen of England"?

Richard had promised EW's daughters husbands of sufficient rank to be worthy of marrying a king's (illegitimate) daughter, and his choice of a suitable husband is indicated by his marrying Cecily, the second daughter, to his own follower, Ralph Scrope. The only advantage that he could possibly gain by marrying the niece he had declared illegitimate in the document stating his right to the crown would be to keep her out of the hands of Henry Tudor, and that could just as effectively be accomplished by marrying her to someone else (in this instance, Manuel of Portugal.) There is simply no comparison between negotiating for a marriage to a legitimate, wealthy European connections whose relatives were politically powerful and his own illegitimate niece who could bring him nothing but a dubiously legitimate heir (Elizabeth herself would have to be legitimized, forcing the repeal of Richard's own claim to the throne) and charges of incestuous passion and hypocrisy.

If Elizabeth were really so foolish as to have had a crush on her uncle and spoken aloud about it (or presented a letter to the Duke of Norfolk about it) that would be all the more reason to include her in the negotiations for the Portuguese marriage.

In other words, we have solid evidence that he wanted to marry someone else (with the Spanish princess as a fallback candidate) coupled with his own denial that he ever wanted to marry his niece. There is absolutely no evidence to corroborate the rumor. The only evidence we have, and it is very solid, goes against it.

Far from overstepping the mark, I think that the evidence for the other two marriages are all the proof we need that Richard was telling the truth--if his own very public and emotional denial is not sufficient in itself. Surely, he would not have subjected himself to a public ordeal if the rumors had been true. And as I keep saying, no one had better cause to know the *disadvantages* of such a marriage than Richard, who would have undermined his own claim by marrying her. In fact, her claim would have been stronger than his (and he would be admitting to unlawfully usurping the crown from the rightful king, her brother. It was simply unthinkable in every way.

Please do read Annette Carson's book, which provides the documentation for the Portuguese and Spanish marriages. I've already quoted Richard's own denial.

Also, don't know how familiar you are with Titulus Regius, but this article explains it very well:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm

It should also make clear why Richard would not want it repealed, as he would have to do if he married Elizabeth.

Carol

Weds, thanks so much for those kind words. I agree with everything, but I think you're under a bit of a misapprehension. I promise you I'm not a fantasist or role-player or any of that! :) I'm a historian who has specialised in the late medieval and early modern period.

When I asked Doug if it was theoretically possible for Richard to have announced a putative marriage to his niece, I wasn't suggesting he had actually *done* that! :) I was talking about the validity of the objections Croyland puts in the mouths of Catesby and Ratcliffe, and was trying (badly) to say that the more plausible those objections were the more plausible Croyland's story also becomes - and vice versa.

Hence my question - could Richard (in theory) have married his niece and kept his crown?

Sorry for the clumsy expression and the subsequent even clumsier explanation.

I do however most definitely like to sit on the fence, and I'm very glad that's not unwelcome here :)



--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The prevailing belief here isn't that all the mysteries are solved. The knowledgeable scholars and historians here say, "This is what the various sources say about [each mystery]. From the preponderance of evidence and after analyzing it and Richard's past deeds and patterns of behavior and policy, this is what I've come to believe."
>
> The sources are complex, and they're spread across 527 years. They also contradict each other in many cases, and some are trustworthy while others are not. Some you may decide to trust in one place, but not in another (if another primary source backs up the first source). It's complex and frustrating and exhausting to try to make Richard/events black and white. There are too many players who wrote with too many shades of gray to ever do that. And if you're going to doubt Richard himself when he has made a statement...then I don't understand how you'll ever trust any contemporary source, except perhaps his writing "Loyaltie me lie" in his books.
>
> Then again, what loyalty does Person A think bound him? What loyalty does Person B think bound him? Loyalty to his brother? Then one could argue he was disloyal to his brother's children, so perhaps he was loyal only to his own greed, or to the interests of the realm. Perhaps he meant to be loyal to his family and to destroy the possibility of the Woodvilles destroying his family if they gained power over E5. And we're off again, to list instances when he was loyal to [whoever/whatever] and debate and discuss again. Over three. little. Latin. words in the margin of a medieval manuscript.
>
> Nothing is in black and white, everything is in shades of gray when you study Richard's life and the man himself. There's just too much we don't know. And we get exhausted chasing his tail and our own.
>
> So yes, some people here have studied the sources and the man, and they've made up their minds on the "mysteries." They are generous and patient, and will share their research and knowledge with you and leave you free to make up your own mind. But if you continue pushing against the research and knowledge, asking things like, "But couldn't Richard have announced he was marrying Elizabeth instead of announcing he wasn't marrying Elizabeth" their patience will grow a little thin because Richard *didn't do that* in real life.
>
> It's nothing personal. It's just that there are too many real mysteries to discuss/debate without dragging in a non-existent event.
>
> If you want to talk about Thinges Richard from a writer's POV (e.g., discuss fictional scenarios with Richard-as-a-character), then there might be medieval England fantasy writers groups that would welcome that. But writers and scholars are two different creatures when it comes to discussing R3. The scholars don't want to spin imaginary tales about Richard -- they're already too busy trying to ferret out what's fiction and what's fact in the original sources.
>
> Historians don't consider alternate history "possibilities" as possibilities. They see historical scenarios and pour over original sources. Possibilities outside the original sources belong to the fiction writer, not the historian. The historian can give you the historical foundation for whatever mystery you're investigating and save you a heck of a lot of research time. But when you want to use that foundation to play a writer's "what if" game... the historian doesn't want to play.
>
> That doesn't make you or anyone else unwelcome here. It just means that you and they want to discuss Richard in a different way.
>
> I hope that makes sense and somehow helps.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > Wow, well then I guess I'm alone in wanting to keep an open mind. That saddens me, but I hope it won't mean I'm not welcome. Richard is a very dear old "friend" to me, and I'm enjoying discussing him, even if I don't feel able to join in the prevailing belief here that all the mysteries are solved :)
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
> > > Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.
>

From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@

> But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely? [snip]

Carol responds:

I'd say far better to weigh the evidence and go with the stronger case. With regard to the supposed deaths of Richard's nephews, we need to keep a number of possibilities open since the evidence is still out. But in cases where we do have strong supporting evidence, we need to use it. Otherwise, we're giving equal weight to primary evidence (official documents from Richard's own reign) and Tudor sources, even the best of which are flawed.

If you were about to be fired from your job, surely you would consider the actual documents as of more weight than your coworker's accusations against you. That's what we're dealing with here: fact versus rumor--at least where facts are available.

In dealing with Anne's illness, for example, we don't have any primary documentation, so we do the best we can with the Croyland chronicle, bearing in mind that it's not an objective source or even a well-informed one (contrast his testimony for Edward's reign where he seems clearly to have been present and for Richard's where his testimony is much weaker and in some cases provably wrong).

BTW, I hope you never find yourself on a jury telling your fellow jurors "but we have to keep open both possibilities. He could be innocent or guilty of holding up that bank"! {Smile]

Carol

It doesn't mean we don't have an open mind. It means we have looked at all sides and have decided which ones make the most sense. To me that's what an open mind is.
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:

> Wow, well then I guess I'm alone in wanting to keep an open mind. That saddens me, but I hope it won't mean I'm not welcome. Richard is a very dear old "friend" to me, and I'm enjoying discussing him, even if I don't feel able to join in the prevailing belief here that all the mysteries are solved :)
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
> > Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
> >
> > Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them. It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> > That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Frankly no. It doesn't make more sense at all. As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
> > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > Liz replied:ÃÂ As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orÃÂ disbelieveÃÂ since they are either true or they're not.ÃÂ Richard either planned to marry
> > > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was:
Richard Replacing Anne?)


> If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to
> find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up
> on posting!

Right, I've got him, here we are:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baker,_Richard_(1568-1645)_(DNB00)

He was born only eight years after Buck, which explains why he doesn't give
sources for things like Richard weeping at Ann's funeral: his sources would
be people telling him what their grandparents had told them about scenes
those grandparents had actually witnessed. And he was the grandson of Henry
VIII's chancellor, so he would probably have had access to excellent
sources.

He's not considered very reliable - apparently he made a lot of mistakes,
plus he wrote it while in debtors' prison - but in the case of Richard he
was writing about near-contemporary events.

As I recollect it he's quite favourably disposed to Richard but not
effusively so, so he has no major axe to grind either way, so his statements
will be trustworthy - at least, he can be expected to truthfully relate what
other people have said to him, which of course doesn't guarantee that *they*
didn't have an axe to grind, or that they had good memories.

Isn't that fun? A whole new nearly-primary source, and I'm the only person
here who's read it - and all I can remember is that Richard wept at Ann's
funeral and some people thought she had encouraged him to accept the throne,
because I read it thirty *#~ing years ago and had no idea it was rare.

The fact that an envoy was dispatched to discuss a possible marriage to a Portuguese princess after Anne's death is not evidence that the claims of CC and Buck are wrong, because the two are not mutually exclusive. They just aren't. You can only see them as so if you impose an inhumanly linear and rational, and completely non-15th C mode of thinking on everyone involved.

It's perfectly possible that Richard pretended to want to marry Elizabeth (as Buck says) or really wanted to marry her (as CC says) and was allowing his envoys to bid for a Portuguese princess either at the same time or after. There would be nothing strange about this and nothing unethical. He would simply be a prince keeping his options open, or letting Europe think he was keeping his options open.

More to the point, if we take CC's timeline, then by the time the envoy was in Portugal negotiating a possible marriage, Richard would already have been distancing himself from Elizabeth, as per the advice of Catesby and Ratcliffe. Buck also suggests the major part of Richard's seduction /deception of Elizabeth took place before the queen died.

One way or another, these three narratives simply don't exclude each other.



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. The documented Portugese plans with Brompton in Portugal fourteen days after Anne died. The only witness we know to be there at the time and who must be more reliable than others, by default: Richard himself.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <
>
> > I can't fault any
> > historian for using either source, if that's all that was available at the
> > time they wrote. What I can, and do, find fault with is ignoring information
> > that doesn't support a particular thesis and may very completely disprove
> > previously known "facts".
> > Doug
> >
>
> I absolutely agree - but is there any information that doesn't support or completely disproves the claims by Buck and CC that Richard, however unwisely, was considering marrying his niece?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> One way or another, these three narratives simply don't exclude each
> other.

But what advantage do you think he might have thought that he could have
gained by marrying her rather than someone else (that is, as distinct from
the benefits of marrying at all), and which would outweigh the disadvantages
of either

a) marrying a bastard or

b) religitimising Elizabeth in order to marry her, thereby negating the act
which put him on the throne, identifying himself as a usurper and either
putting one of her brothers on the throne in his place, if they were living,
or having to admit that they weren't living, when up till now, if they
*weren't* living, he had thought it a good idea to keep quiet about it?

Is this it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Co-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22richard+baker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XTQwUcL3Fomi9QTN14HoDg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ

A J

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:08 AM
> Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral
> (Was:
> Richard Replacing Anne?)
>
> > If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to
> > find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught
> up
> > on posting!
>
> Right, I've got him, here we are:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baker,_Richard_(1568-1645)_(DNB00)
>
> He was born only eight years after Buck, which explains why he doesn't
> give
> sources for things like Richard weeping at Ann's funeral: his sources
> would
> be people telling him what their grandparents had told them about scenes
> those grandparents had actually witnessed. And he was the grandson of
> Henry
> VIII's chancellor, so he would probably have had access to excellent
> sources.
>
> He's not considered very reliable - apparently he made a lot of mistakes,
> plus he wrote it while in debtors' prison - but in the case of Richard he
> was writing about near-contemporary events.
>
> As I recollect it he's quite favourably disposed to Richard but not
> effusively so, so he has no major axe to grind either way, so his
> statements
> will be trustworthy - at least, he can be expected to truthfully relate
> what
> other people have said to him, which of course doesn't guarantee that
> *they*
> didn't have an axe to grind, or that they had good memories.
>
> Isn't that fun? A whole new nearly-primary source, and I'm the only person
> here who's read it - and all I can remember is that Richard wept at Ann's
> funeral and some people thought she had encouraged him to accept the
> throne,
> because I read it thirty *#~ing years ago and had no idea it was rare.
>
>
>

He was negotiating one double marriage with Portugal - fact.
A Spanish Princess was being considered as a reserve by his advisors, but Brampton was in Portugal in March 1483 - fact.
----- Original Message -----
From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: the vexed question of the Buck letter





--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> Doug here:
> What advantage would a marriage to his niece bring Richard? None. What would
> a marriage between Richard and a Spanish or Portugese Princess bring? A
> military/diplomatic alliance, better conditions for trade and a re-union of
> the Houses of York and Lancaster.

It would have denied Tudor the marriage that in many people's eyes would have validated his right to rule. That's Buck's reasoning anyhow. But then if we're talking about desire or "incestuous passion' then we aren't talking about rational motives.

> How is that planning on stiffing a foreign Princess, all the while knowing
> you were going to marry your niece, wouldn't make Richard look bad?
>

There was no dishonour in opening negotiations to marry more than one person at a time - which ought to be obvious to you since Richard was simultaneously negotiating marriages with Span and Portugal. Such political marriages were brokered and broken before being solemnised all the time.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Is this it?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1Co-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22richard+baker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XTQwUcL3Fomi9QTN14HoDg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ
>
> A J

Very interesting - thank you! So not Victorian, then, but 1670. I rather doubt this is the book Claire means, because quickly skimmed this source seems pretty hostile (the word 'villainy' appears many times, and 'confederacy in evil' at least once ;)). And instead of Anne urging Richard to accept the throne, Baker has Richard marrying Anne in 1483! (Which just goes to show that 'womens affections are Eccentrick to common apprehension; whereof the two Poles are Passion and Inconstancy'. Oh well. Let us have a moment of silence, girls, to reflect in shame upon the Eccentricity of our emotional lives.)

Interesting, though, that such a hostile source refers to any tears at all:

'… for within few dayes after, whether by poyson, or by what other means, it is not certainly known, she departed this life; and with all solemnity, not without some formal tears of King Richard, was interred in St. Peter's Church at Westminster.'

(Can't you just imagine Villainous Richard dabbing at the dry corners of his eyes with a handkerchief, with a bored look on his face?)

You know the one you'd expect to have made it is the Victorian Caroline Halsted - it would have been 'her style'. And she DOESN'T which I think tells us lots (particularly as she leans quite heavily on Croyland and Buck). H



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:19
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?

 

I have hunted for the source of the "openly crying at her funeral", and I have found nothing. It's mentioned as 'fact' in an Alison Weir book, but really, no-one seems to have pinned it down.

Col

--- In , "angelalice75" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: angelalice75
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
.......
> >
> > Not in so many words, afaik, but we have Richard's own words, recorded by
> > the Mercers, that he was as sorry at Ann's death as it was possible for a
> > man to be, and there's the source - is it Croyland? - which says that he
> > continued to visit Ann every night even when she was sick, and had to be
> > barred from her bed by his doctors to protect him from infection -
> > suggesting that he himself had been willing to risk his own death to go to
> > her - and that he wept openly at her funeral and had to shut himself away
> > for three days afterwards.
> >

>
> There's nothing in this passage about the king's grief or about him locking himself away for three days, though I have heard that said before - anyone know the source?
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral
(Was: Richard Replacing Anne?)


> Very interesting - thank you! So not Victorian, then, but 1670.

1643 originally, I think, but a series of revised editions came out over the
next couple of hundred years. Baker was born in 1568 and wrote the book in
his sixties or seventies.

> I rather doubt this is the book Claire means, because quickly skimmed this
> source seems pretty hostile (the word 'villainy' appears many times, and
> 'confederacy in evil' at least once ;)). And instead of Anne urging
> Richard to accept the throne, Baker has Richard marrying Anne in 1483!
> (Which just goes to show that 'womens affections are Eccentrick to common
> apprehension; whereof the two Poles are Passion and Inconstancy'. Oh well.
> Let us have a moment of silence, girls, to reflect in shame upon the
> Eccentricity of our emotional lives.)

It doesn't sound like the book I read (blast!), unless I've misremembered it
very badly. Apart from anything else I think I'd have noticed if it was
written in Olde, and I remember the language as having been just a bit
flowery and high Victorian.

Still, Baker seems very interesting. I haven't got on to his Richard yet,
but listen to him on Brother Ned:

*****

He had an excellent Art in improving his favours ; for he could do as much
with a final courtesy, as other men with a great Benefit : And that which
was more, he could make advantages of disadvantages : For he got the Love of
the Londoners by owing them money ; and the good Will of the Citizens, by
lying with their Wives.

Of his Death and Burial

Whether it began from his mind being extremely troubled with the injurious
dealing of the King of France ; or from his body by intemperence of diet, to
which he was much given : He fell into a Sickness (some say a Catarrh, some
a Feaver) but into a Sicknes whereof he died. In the time of which
Sickness, and at the very point of death, Sir Thomas Moor makes him to make
a speech to his Lords ; which I might think to be the speech of a sick man,
if it were not so sound ; and of a weak man, if it were not so long : but it
seems Sir Thomas Moor delivers rather what was fit for him to say, than what
he said ...

*****

In other words, even at the time a near-contemporary historian noticed that
More invented at least some of his dialogue to make a better story, and is
being disapproving and snide about it.

> '. for within few dayes after, whether by poyson, or by what other means,
> it is not certainly known, she departed this life; and with all solemnity,
> not without some formal tears of King Richard, was interred in St. Peter's
> Church at Westminster.'

Again, it doesn't sound like the book I read, because I'm nearly entirely
sure that it referred to Richard walking with the coffin through the
streets. I incorporated that image into a poem I was working on at the
time, and I know it was that book in that library which inspired the image.
The description was so striking that I remember wondering whether the author
had really got it right, or whether they'd got Richard's story confused with
the story of the Eleanor Crosses.

Damn. I thought I'd found it. But still, Baker is a potential
treasure-trove even so.

YOU are BOTH RIGHT. As I am sure any Macmillan Nurse would attest. 

The sharing of a bed might vary in individual cases, however with a loving couple the general rule would be that what is desired by the 'Dying Person'. 

It is likely that this would not be 'Sharing a bed' in the normal sense but lying alongside and talking to the person in a loving way, sadly not something easily achieved in the modern world in hospital.

 Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:21
>Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> 
>
>From: EileenB
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>> You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not
>> what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is
>> common sense...
>
>Yes, but that's not what it says. It says he was advised not to share a bed
>by *his* physicians.
>
>It's not necessarily true, either. Poeple have diffrerent mileages for
>these things, but a friend of mine died recently and so far as I know
>(because he was too ill to talk in the last ten days or so of his life) he
>shared a bed with his wife to the end and would have been devastated not to.
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?


> It is likely that this would not be 'Sharing a bed' in the normal sense
> but lying alongside and talking to the person in a loving way, sadly not
> something easily achieved in the modern world in hospital.

Yes, exactly, very nicely put - and sadly something Ann and Richard were
evidently deprived of. But if she was her father's daughter she would
probably tell him to stay away and not risk infection, but to protect the
Crown he represented.

This might be a bit late - I am platying catch up at work and haven't been able to read the whole thread.  He's certainly not contemporary.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baker_(chronicler)
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 0:08
Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was: Richard Replacing Anne?)

 

"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.
>
> The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?
>
> George...your king needs you....

Carol responds:

I wish he'd come back because we need his sense of humor. Just when we're most in need of aluminum foil, too!

I tried a site search for posts on Anne's funeral but couldn't find what we're looking for.

I did find a reference to tears in the Victorian biographer Caroline Halsted's account of Anne's funeral:

"The gorgeous manner, however, in which the obsequies of the deceased queen were solemnized, the magnificence of the funeral, the solemnity by which it was characterized, the tears which her husband is allowed to have shed when personally attending her remains to St. Peters, Westminster, near the high altar of which she was interred, with all honour befitting a queen . . . give proof that her decease "added not a little to the king's sufferings and sorrows" . . . . (p. 366).

Halsted manages to include five footnotes for this sentence (not including the part I snipped, which includes a favorable quotation from a biographer of Elizabeth of York). The relevant one (for Richard's tears) is one I've never heard of, Baker's Chronicle (p. 571). (The quotation about Richard's sufferings is from Buck.) Halsted's book was published in 1844. Baker appears to be Sir Richard Baker, a "chronicler of the English monarchs," who also evidently praises Richard's good laws, but that's all I can find out about him from a search of her book. (The whole thing is available on Google Books.)

If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up on posting!

Carol

And, I thought all of us were here because of our love of Richard III, and the Plantagenet Dynasty. We certainly cannot "undo" history, but we can dig, search, read and learn. I do not think any of us are in lock step, and while some things sound a little different, I am ready to listen. You, who know so much, are sharing it, which for me is a Master Class.

On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "Vickie" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:



It doesn't mean we don't have an open mind. It means we have looked at all sides and have decided which ones make the most sense. To me that's what an open mind is.
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "angelalice75" angelalice5657@...<mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> Wow, well then I guess I'm alone in wanting to keep an open mind. That saddens me, but I hope it won't mean I'm not welcome. Richard is a very dear old "friend" to me, and I'm enjoying discussing him, even if I don't feel able to join in the prevailing belief here that all the mysteries are solved :)
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you and I think we all are except one.
> > Either we believe what Richard said or wrote at the time or we believe his uninformed enemies. He is his own unique primary source.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow is it me or is this forum which was always so nice becoming an uncomfortable place? I've just read all this having skulked away from unintentionally upsetting Carol (honest!!) to find this going on as well. We had quite a heated debate about a month ago, I recall, where McJohn made a very sensible case for us all being different and entitled to our views, and being respected for them. And by the way, for what it's worth I'm with Liz on this.
> >
> > Please hurry back George and Paul and bring us a bit of much needed humour and diversion. As Paul would say, I don't think we're doing our man much good. H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>@yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 22:01
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No thanks, I think there are times when people have to come down on one side or the other and for me this is definitely one of them. It's also not too comfortable if you stay up there for too long....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: angelalice75 mailto:angelalice5657%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> >
> >
> > That's a shame - the view's great and there's so much room :)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Frankly no.ý It doesn't make more sense at all.ý As I said one of them is true and one is not, and I'm not interested in joining you on the fence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: angelalice75
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 21:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: angelalice75 angelalice5657@
> > > >
> > > > ýýý
> > > > . I'm trying to go for a more open view that allows us to balance all the unproven possibilities, permitting them all to co-exist without having to either believe or disbelieve any of them.
> > > > ýýý
> > > > Liz replied:ýýý As far as I'm concerned we "have" to believe orýýý disbelieveýýý since they are either true or they're not.ýýý Richard either planned to marry
> > > > E of York or he didn't, he either poisoned Anne or he didn't.ýýý
> > >
> > > But we don't *know* which is true do we? So it makes no sense to just pick one to believe. Far better to keep open to both possibilities, surely?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi,
 
A picture I referred to (but the post has probably got lost in the melee) has only men attending fifteenth century funerals. I'm off to work for 2 days so won't have vanished by the way.  H.
Carol, like you I looked in Halstead, where I expected it to be (very Victorian) but I couldn't find it. She makes a good point about his letter to York though, which talks about the rumours and how he abhors them. Can't find it now as off to work but it's in that bit.  H.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 14:14
Subject: Re: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was: Richard Replacing Anne?)


 

This might be a bit late - I am platying catch up at work and haven't been able to read the whole thread.  He's certainly not contemporary.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baker_(chronicler)
 

From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 0:08
Subject: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral (Was: Richard Replacing Anne?)

 

"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I wish George would come back, because I think he addressed this in the late fall of last year.
>
> The upshot was that kings did not attend their queen's funerals, so it couldn't have been there that Richard was seen crying. Pure speculation says maybe it was when he was visiting her body in Westminster, prior to her funeral?
>
> George...your king needs you....

Carol responds:

I wish he'd come back because we need his sense of humor. Just when we're most in need of aluminum foil, too!

I tried a site search for posts on Anne's funeral but couldn't find what we're looking for.

I did find a reference to tears in the Victorian biographer Caroline Halsted's account of Anne's funeral:

"The gorgeous manner, however, in which the obsequies of the deceased queen were solemnized, the magnificence of the funeral, the solemnity by which it was characterized, the tears which her husband is allowed to have shed when personally attending her remains to St. Peters, Westminster, near the high altar of which she was interred, with all honour befitting a queen . . . give proof that her decease "added not a little to the king's sufferings and sorrows" . . . . (p. 366).

Halsted manages to include five footnotes for this sentence (not including the part I snipped, which includes a favorable quotation from a biographer of Elizabeth of York). The relevant one (for Richard's tears) is one I've never heard of, Baker's Chronicle (p. 571). (The quotation about Richard's sufferings is from Buck.) Halsted's book was published in 1844. Baker appears to be Sir Richard Baker, a "chronicler of the English monarchs," who also evidently praises Richard's good laws, but that's all I can find out about him from a search of her book. (The whole thing is available on Google Books.)

If anyone wants to Google "Sir Richard Baker" or "Baker's Chronicle" to find any further information, please do. I'm still trying to get caught up on posting!

Carol

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tears at Anne's funeral
(Was: Richard Replacing Anne?)


> This might be a bit late - I am platying catch up at work and haven't been
> able to read the whole thread. He's certainly not contemporary.

No indeed, but like Buck he was born early enough to have spoken in his
childhood or early youth to people who actually knew or saw Richard,
provided they were old when he spoke to him and had been children when
Richard died. Plus he was the grandson of Fast Harry's chancellor of the
exchequer, so he probably had access to original account books etc.

Multiple Bereavements are certainly factors affecting behaviours.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:29
>Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , pansydobersby wrote:
>
>> But he wasn't there. Why do we assume the Croyland version is based on the facts that >would have given rise to the rumours, instead of the Croyland version being built around >the rumours themselves?
>
>If we're going to be completely accurate we have to say we don't know if the Croyland Chronicler was there or not - because we don't know who he was. If he was a prominent dignitary of the time then it's possible he was either present at some of these events or knew men who were.
>
>But at any rate I've managed to put over the wrong idea. When I said CC provided a scenario, I wasn't saying I necessarily believed it, just that it does provide a scenario, so we don't need to imagine one - as you were doing.
>
>> But this, again, means that we have to accept the Croyland version as the truth.
>
>No, it means we acknowledge it as a *possible* version of the truth, or as containing some possible truth. To me this is the only reasonable way to proceed. Dismissing it out of hand, as some do, is just as anti-rational as believing it without question in the way Weir seems to.
>
>> So if I understand correctly, the options would have been:
>>
>> (a) There were just Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations all along.
>> (b) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but at some point Richard got distracted and went off on a crazy tangential idea of marrying his niece, and then went back to the Portuguese plans.
>> (c) There were Portuguese marriage plans and negotiations, but these were just a ploy to distract people from his *real* plan of marrying his niece, but then he realised his real plan was a bit of a lousy plan so the ploy hastily became his plan B.
>>
>> I know what seems most plausible to me, and it isn't (b) or (c), to be honest...
>
>From my experience of medieval royal politics they all sound entirely plausible. In the medieval period it was commonplace for states to be negotiating marriages or marriage treaties with more than one other nation at once. Most such negotiations would come to nothing and a good percentage were never intended to. They were just another aspect of the complex diplomacy going on all the time. Marriage treaties could be dangled like a carrot to entice co-operation, later to be withdrawn when the politics changed; they could be used for leverage or brandished as a threat. To suggest the fact there were ongoing marriage negotiations with Portugal somehow rules out any other possible marriage ideas for EoY is just not compatible with the way such things were done in the 15th C. IMO.
>
>> Dunno... I don't usually give kings and politicians much credit for doing what they need to do, for the sake of self-preservation.
>
>Aaww, c'mon ease up on him a little. The poor man had lost his son, lost his wife, so *if* he was really forced to give up another someone he might have loved then it can't have been an easy time for him.
>
>
>
>
>

A very 'Emphatic View' not one that would be shared by many Hospice Staff.

  The Dying [Us All eventually] can vacillate between 'Leave me be' to come & 'Sit / Lie with me' a little while. Modern evidence can be seen in those who go to Switzerland with their 'Nearest & Dearest'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 19:39
>Subject: Re: Richard Replacing Anne?
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>>
>> You simply do not share the bed of someone who is dying..It matters not what Anne was dying of....Neither of them would have wanted this. This is common sense...
>
>I don't disagree with you but there's an important point we might be missing. We assume they all knew she was dying - because she died. But it's possible that throughout her illness, or at least in the early stages of it, she wasn't expected to die at all.
>
>It depends what she was suffering from. I wish there was some sort of contemporary evidence to at least narrow the possibilities down.
>
>
>
>
>