Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Worth Reading?

It's a while since I read it having acquired it quite early - I actually
think its rather good although I am lukewarm with some of his conclusions
later in the book. Having said that the problem for many Ricardians is that
after all it is possible that EW was after all "a good egg" <g>.

Elizabeth's supposed "haughtiness" particular with regard her coronation
banquet and her churching following the birth of Elizabeth of York is an old
tale and doesn't stand up in my view - Baldwin is the latest in a long line
to debunk that particular myth.

A major problem for the Lancastrian's had been the perception that Henry VI
was "unkingly" - a man who failed to meet the expectations of those around
him and the populace at large. It was therefore natural that the new
Yorkist court would attempt to be impressive - to create an image of both
legitimacy and security. It is also worth bearing in mind that the late
medieval period saw a significant transition in the role and image of
monarchy that would eventually give birth to the absolutism of the 17th and
18th Centuries.

Why he recorded it in such detail is simple - this was a major political
event in the life of the English Court he would naturally want to show off
to his audience just how well he and his master had been treated. He is
also perhaps explaining a difference in custom between England and his own
country along with a wish to illustrate the grandeur of the English court.
It would have been staggering for him not to remark upon the event.

Incidentally the invitations to Margaret of Anjou's churching - were they
the invitations to the ceremony itself, the Queen's dinner afterwards or the
public banquet - because Elizabeth Wydeville dined in her chambers with only
female guests. It's also useful to remember that Elizabeth's position would
dictate that she followed correct form with regard such public events and
there were plenty of hostile chroniclers in England who would have remarked
on her behaviour if it wasn't quite out of the top drawer - the fact none of
the English sources attack her for this is quite illuminating.

----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Worth Reading?


> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > --- In , sweethelly2003
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > It looks like that the Ann Wroe book might be worth looking into.
> > I
> > > have seen it in the bookshops in Melbourne.
> > >
> > > There seen to be rather a lukewarm response about the Baldwin
> book
> > on
> > > Elizabeth Woodville.
> > >
> > > I might have to wait to see whether my library get it though my
> > local
> > > system of libraries seen reluctant to have books about that era.
> > > Perhaps they think us Australians are not interested or
> something.
> > > Not true.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the advice.
> > >
> > > Helen
> >
> > If it's the one I read (now in storage so can't find to check) it
> > was useful in some respects but I agree that it is uncritical and
> > rather too postive all round about what a "good egg" Lizzie really
> > was.
> > Brunhild
>
> Yes, it's about 10 months since I read it so my recollection is hazy.
> I felt it did contain a lot of useful information, so IS worth
> getting as long as you don't expect to agree with all his
> interpretations. I don't think he's the first to claim that EW's
> imperious behaviour at Princess Elizabeth's churching was just normal
> court procedure, for instance, but he does and I question this. If it
> were, I don't see why our foreign visitor would have recorded it in
> such detail and with such awe. Also, I've seen a copy of the list of
> invitations to Queen Margaret's churching after the birth of Edward
> of Lancaster and all the names are female, which suggests to me this
> big public state occasion wasn't normal. As Hughes has pointed out,
> Edward IV was deliberately keeping an unprecedentedly splendid court,
> a sort of second Camelot with himself as Arthur returned/ Sun-king in
> splendour. Elizabeth Woodville, despite (or perhaps because of) her
> rather dubious rise to position as queen, seems to have joined in
> this extremely wholeheartedly. I suspect she was both ambitious and
> insecure; she wanted all this perhaps, but also didn't dare show any
> sign of weakness.
>
> Possibly Tim has a view on this book. Tim?
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
>> Why he recorded it in such detail is simple - this was a major
political
> event in the life of the English Court he would naturally want to
show off
> to his audience just how well he and his master had been treated.
He is
> also perhaps explaining a difference in custom between England and
his own
> country along with a wish to illustrate the grandeur of the English
court.
> It would have been staggering for him not to remark upon the event.
>
>
> dictate that she followed correct form with regard such public
events and
> there were plenty of hostile chroniclers in England who would have
remarked
> on her behaviour if it wasn't quite out of the top drawer - the
fact none of
> the English sources attack her for this is quite illuminating.
>

In many such matters, what is remarked upon is remarkable. There was
for contemporaries to spend a lot of ink on the customary and usual.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:>
> In many such matters, what is remarked upon is remarkable. There
was
> for contemporaries to spend a lot of ink on the customary and usual.
>
> Katy

What I meant to say was that there was no reason for contemporaries
to spend a lot of ink expounding on the usual and cstomary.

Katy

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> It's a while since I read it having acquired it quite early - I
actually
> think its rather good although I am lukewarm with some of his
conclusions
> later in the book. Having said that the problem for many
Ricardians is that
> after all it is possible that EW was after all "a good egg" <g>.
>
> Elizabeth's supposed "haughtiness" particular with regard her
coronation
> banquet and her churching following the birth of Elizabeth of York
is an old
> tale and doesn't stand up in my view - Baldwin is the latest in a
long line
> to debunk that particular myth.

>
> A major problem for the Lancastrian's had been the perception that
Henry VI
> was "unkingly" - a man who failed to meet the expectations of those
around
> him and the populace at large. It was therefore natural that the
new
> Yorkist court would attempt to be impressive - to create an image
of both
> legitimacy and security. It is also worth bearing in mind that the
late
> medieval period saw a significant transition in the role and image
of
> monarchy that would eventually give birth to the absolutism of the
17th and
> 18th Centuries.
>
> Why he recorded it in such detail is simple - this was a major
political
> event in the life of the English Court he would naturally want to
show off
> to his audience just how well he and his master had been treated.
He is
> also perhaps explaining a difference in custom between England and
his own
> country along with a wish to illustrate the grandeur of the English
court.
> It would have been staggering for him not to remark upon the event.

I agree up to a point. As I think I acknowledged in my own message,
the Yorkist court was a lot more splendid than that of Henry VI, and
also many contemporary European courts (Burgundy being a notable
exception), and the occasion, and its recording, do need to be seen
in that context. And, yes, it had become more splendid largely for
good political reasons, because it was what people wanted. However,
it is not just the splendour of the occasion that was remarked upon
but the extreme formality, the way the the exalted noblewomen around
Elizabeth were kept on their knees for hours, and had to dive down
every time they passed her in the dance. People liked their monarchs
splendid but they also liked them approachable. And that "amiability"
in noble ladies was prized can be shown by a reading of Rous'
descriptions of Anne of Warwick and her daughters. Might I suggest
that this is perhaps the area where Elizabeth was less successful
than her husband? In contrast to this occaasion, for instance, the
Croyland Chronicler's disapproving description of the celebrations at
Richard's court Christmas 1484, with Anne Neville and Elizabeth of
York dressing up like twins, sounds splendid but very much more
informal.
Perhaps someone else can tell us whether the Queen's churching had
formerly been treated as a big state occasion.



>
> Incidentally the invitations to Margaret of Anjou's churching -
were they
> the invitations to the ceremony itself, the Queen's dinner
afterwards or the
> public banquet - because Elizabeth Wydeville dined in her chambers
with only
> female guests.

I don't know. I saw it in Agnes Strickland's "Lives of the Queens of
England", and it didn't specify. I've never seen any mention of a big
occasion for Margaret's churching which all the nobility came out to
attend. At the time (18 November 1453) the lords were coming to court
with their armed retinues for a Great Council to sort out the
government during the King's incapacity, so they'd have been
available, but I'd have thought there might have been some mention in
contemporary sources given the tensions. I do suspect that things
would have been done differently for Elizabeth of York because the
nature of the court had changed so much. Of course, Queen Margaret
may also have kept her female attendants on their knees for hours. I
think Cecily of York and Jacquetta of Bedford were both there so they
would have known. But that wouldn't necessarily have been a clever
example for Elizabeth to follow given that these ladies had so
recently been of considerably higher status than herself.

It's also useful to remember that Elizabeth's position would
> dictate that she followed correct form with regard such public
events and
> there were plenty of hostile chroniclers in England who would have
remarked
> on her behaviour if it wasn't quite out of the top drawer - the
fact none of
> the English sources attack her for this is quite illuminating.

Of course, for English commentators this was only one occasion
amongst many. They were generally hostile to Queen Eliz., however,
and perhaps this sort of thing suggests why. However, again we seem
to be in agreement that Elizabeth perhaps felt too insecure in her
position to be easy-going. And possibly she couldn't win. Evidently
Croyland was not impressed at Elizabeth of York being dressed like
Queen anne Neville (an "amiable" lady who loved company according to
Rous). On the other hand, Anne Neville does not seem to have suffered
from the sort of personal unpopularity "enjoyed" by Elizabeth
Woodville.


Marie

. However,
> it is not just the splendour of the occasion that was remarked upon
> but the extreme formality, the way the the exalted noblewomen around
> Elizabeth were kept on their knees for hours, and had to dive down
> every time they passed her in the dance.

That's actually not what the description says - the Queen is seated alone -
the Queen's mother and King's sister standing some distance away - when the
Queen spoke to her mother then they knelt. After the first dish was served
the King's sister and the Queen's mother sat down. The laides and maidens
who served the Queen knelt only for as long as the Queen ate. After the
banquet the Queen remained seated and her mother knelt before her but at
time was bidden to stand by the Queen.

Even today - no-one would sit in the presence of the monarch without being
invited to do so. This event was also a deeply religious ceremony and
highly formal.

People liked their monarchs
> splendid but they also liked them approachable. And that "amiability"
> in noble ladies was prized can be shown by a reading of Rous'
> descriptions of Anne of Warwick and her daughters. Might I suggest
> that this is perhaps the area where Elizabeth was less successful
> than her husband?

Worth comparing the Churching and Coronation descriptions to the effusive
description of the Queen playing games with her ladies in her chambers -
when Louis Lord Gruthuyse came to visit in September 1472. At the banquet
the following night held in the Queen's chambers - the King the Queen,
Elizabeth of York (a child of five or six), the Duchess of Exeter, Lady
Rivers, Buckingham and his wife along with Gruthuyse sat together at one
table with a variety of others whilst at another table sat a bevy of ladies
whilst in the outer room the Queen's gentlewomen were seated along with
Gruthuyse's servants - hardly that formal.

Probably clear that the Queen simply behaved in accordance with tradition
and the demands of her position according to the situation she found herself
in.

I.
>
> Of course, for English commentators this was only one occasion
> amongst many. They were generally hostile to Queen Eliz., however,
> and perhaps this sort of thing suggests why.

Actually there is very little in the way of any criticism of her that
predates the end of Edward's reign - the worst that is said by her
contemporaries is that she was of humble birth and not a suitable wife for
the King - hardly earthshattering stuff - there is no attack on her
character that survives from the 60's or 70's that I've ever seen. The side
swipes at her that date from Warwick's turncoat behavious tends to be aimed
at other members of the family along with several other new Yorkist peers
who had gained Warwick's emnity and the accussations made by Warwick against
the Duchess of Bedford which Richard of Gloucester revived in 83. The
surviving correspondence from her which was written during the 70's suggest
that she was certainly used to exercising her authority as Queen and seemed
to take her responsibilities quite seriously but there is nothing to suggest
in comparing them with surviving correspondence from other consorts that she
was unusually demanding or high handed beyond what would have been expected.