Paul

Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)

Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.

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

Ishita,
 
Don't leave.  As for Paul, well to be honest I too thought that Paul seemed a little unhappy lately (shall we say?).  It's a shame and I hope he doesn't take offence at my comment but that's what I think.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 21:29
Subject: Paul

 
Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)

Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.

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

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Paul


> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm,
> testy.
Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to
me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the
wall! Facebook is so much easier!

He's been emailing me, too - initially for a quite civilised and friendly
debate about the circumstances under which it was appropriate to call
someone gay or bi, which I quite enjoyed, but deteriorating into being quite
abusive. He may be suffering from depression, in which case he has my
profound sympathy, but if so he's taking it out on all and sundry.

If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time and to have to go over the wounds he received has been quite horrible. When once again we know that Richard is laid to rest permanently will feel quite healing....Hopefully then we can go back to normal....Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
> Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)
>
> Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Paul


> If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time

Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.

To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.

I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...

God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul
>
>
> > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
>
> Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
>

He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>
> I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>
> God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Paul
> >
> >
> > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >
> > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >
>

Please don't leave, Ishita. I know facebook is a bit friendlier but the Yahoo group is much more scholarly (except of course for having Stephen Lark on Facebook - he knows his stuff). Maire.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita,
>  
> Don't leave.  As for Paul, well to be honest I too thought that Paul seemed a little unhappy lately (shall we say?).  It's a shame and I hope he doesn't take offence at my comment but that's what I think.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 21:29
> Subject: Paul
>
>  
> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
> Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)
>
> Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>

Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> >
> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> >
> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > >
> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > >
> >
>

Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.

P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.

Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > >
> > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > >
> > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I quite agree Eileen. And, I hope we can stop any personal remarks on this forum. Personal things are, well PERSONAL! I take the tacky "Hello" Magazine, because I love England, and there are often some really interesting articles. The February 18th issue, features an entire two page spread, with the facial reconstruction, aside a portrait, and the skeletal remains. Also, a shot of Phillipa, the dig, and a photo of Leicester Cathedral. Unfortunately, Princess Kate was the cover person, but, I was delighted t the mention.
Have a lovely evening everyone.

On Feb 25, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time and to have to go over the wounds he received has been quite horrible. When once again we know that Richard is laid to rest permanently will feel quite healing....Hopefully then we can go back to normal....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
> Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)
>
> Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>

Yep....my husband plays golf. That's an obsession if you ask me. He get's off lightly...his golfing buddies are given lists of jobs to be done before they can play golf. I am way too soft....He does get annoyed with me when Im on my laptop too long...usually when he's hungry...hahahahahahan Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.
>
> P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.
>
> Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > > >
> > > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > > >
> > > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

To all:

I have been quite tolerant the past few weeks regarding a number of headings, volumes and content. We all want to learn and be knowledgable regarding Richard but even I have had to concede that the volumes are too many to read and I am missing some of the issues that have been brewing.

So, where do we go from here? Well, I would like to see the following for starters:-

1/ Topics to be related directly to Richard and his times as specified in the Forum's home page.
2/ No digs at other members in responses.
3/ A big one here which seems to be a problem that I have no visibility of, which is the action of people emailing off-line to each other. Because it seems to be causing an issue and in reality it shouldn't be a problem I propose that this stops now and that all correspondence is done via the group for all to see. Yes, very draconian but if everyone behaved themselves I wouldn't have to put myself in 'parent' mode, had too many years of that here!
4/ If a topic changes then the header changes, not a difficult thing to do and has already been mentioned.
5/ Some members seem to be pretty prolific in sending emails in a very short space of time re the same header, please, think before posting and ask yourself if it is possible to just send one or two emails instead with the queries within. THIS ISN'T A RACE TO MAX OUT POSTINGS EACH DAY! There is the likely hood that we may get to the 6,000 mark in a couple of days, in reality it is far too many and we are loosing quality for quantity, let's look at reducing the volumes back to a level of say 2,000 per month. We can still get out of this what we want at that level I believe, we have done before so it is possible.
6/ With regards to new people, that are less knowledgable than the oldies here that I know despair at times, it is a learning process and we have to accept it. There will always be the same basic questions coming up all the time, just because you know the answer don't be critical of them because at some point in the past you didn't know either! Patience is required on both sides. I also would like to see more respect for people that DO know the facts and not to be drawn into an argument based on an individual's own theory and beat something to death just because....... If they wish to be responsive then please back it up with good evidence and quote where it came from, this is what makes the forum respected.
7/ Will people please read up on topics more before responding at a tangent, a little knowledge is dangerous as they say.

OK, that is all I am going to say for now and I'll monitor how we go for the next few weeks and if needed make changes again.

Regards,

Neil

Moderator

>

I agree Pamela...Think how much the Henry Vll group (is it still going?) will enjoy it if they see members of this forum at each others throats....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I quite agree Eileen. And, I hope we can stop any personal remarks on this forum. Personal things are, well PERSONAL! I take the tacky "Hello" Magazine, because I love England, and there are often some really interesting articles. The February 18th issue, features an entire two page spread, with the facial reconstruction, aside a portrait, and the skeletal remains. Also, a shot of Phillipa, the dig, and a photo of Leicester Cathedral. Unfortunately, Princess Kate was the cover person, but, I was delighted t the mention.
> Have a lovely evening everyone.
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time and to have to go over the wounds he received has been quite horrible. When once again we know that Richard is laid to rest permanently will feel quite healing....Hopefully then we can go back to normal....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm, testy.
> > Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> > Here you go Paul. Are you happy now? Please cease emailing me. Lets block each other:)
> >
> > Of course I won't let one person chase me away from the forum but I am sure I will be here much less often than I would like to.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK Neil....Eileen

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> To all:
>
> I have been quite tolerant the past few weeks regarding a number of headings, volumes and content. We all want to learn and be knowledgable regarding Richard but even I have had to concede that the volumes are too many to read and I am missing some of the issues that have been brewing.
>
> So, where do we go from here? Well, I would like to see the following for starters:-
>
> 1/ Topics to be related directly to Richard and his times as specified in the Forum's home page.
> 2/ No digs at other members in responses.
> 3/ A big one here which seems to be a problem that I have no visibility of, which is the action of people emailing off-line to each other. Because it seems to be causing an issue and in reality it shouldn't be a problem I propose that this stops now and that all correspondence is done via the group for all to see. Yes, very draconian but if everyone behaved themselves I wouldn't have to put myself in 'parent' mode, had too many years of that here!
> 4/ If a topic changes then the header changes, not a difficult thing to do and has already been mentioned.
> 5/ Some members seem to be pretty prolific in sending emails in a very short space of time re the same header, please, think before posting and ask yourself if it is possible to just send one or two emails instead with the queries within. THIS ISN'T A RACE TO MAX OUT POSTINGS EACH DAY! There is the likely hood that we may get to the 6,000 mark in a couple of days, in reality it is far too many and we are loosing quality for quantity, let's look at reducing the volumes back to a level of say 2,000 per month. We can still get out of this what we want at that level I believe, we have done before so it is possible.
> 6/ With regards to new people, that are less knowledgable than the oldies here that I know despair at times, it is a learning process and we have to accept it. There will always be the same basic questions coming up all the time, just because you know the answer don't be critical of them because at some point in the past you didn't know either! Patience is required on both sides. I also would like to see more respect for people that DO know the facts and not to be drawn into an argument based on an individual's own theory and beat something to death just because....... If they wish to be responsive then please back it up with good evidence and quote where it came from, this is what makes the forum respected.
> 7/ Will people please read up on topics more before responding at a tangent, a little knowledge is dangerous as they say.
>
> OK, that is all I am going to say for now and I'll monitor how we go for the next few weeks and if needed make changes again.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Moderator
>
> >
>
>
>
>

Oh me too.......not quite as long, but the "Sunne in Splendor" cemented my feelings. I do not think we are butters, but then, I wouldn't. I hope whatever happens is done with honor and dignity, and the scholarship of so many here, and others not here, will let the world know that Richard was a great man, a good king, quite heroic and brave, and easy on the eyes to boot.

On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>
> I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>
> God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Paul
> >
> >
> > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >
> > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >
>

My sweet husband actually wants to read more about him!!! How about that, getting an engineer to study British History. I agree about indulging. It makes it so much easier, and a lot more fun. Thanks to a suggestion by Carol, I have just received another old book, "The Yorkist Age" by Paul Murray Kendall. It looks fascinating, and I am anxious to read about daily life during the Wars of the Roses.

On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.

P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.

Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > >
> > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > >
> > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

My 87 year old mother has gone Richard crazy since seeing his bones and his handsome reconstructed face. She remembers when I was a kid and a member of the RIII Society in NYC. My husband happily watched Phillipa's documentary. What's not to like when it comes to Richard? Good night everybody, Maire.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> My sweet husband actually wants to read more about him!!! How about that, getting an engineer to study British History. I agree about indulging. It makes it so much easier, and a lot more fun. Thanks to a suggestion by Carol, I have just received another old book, "The Yorkist Age" by Paul Murray Kendall. It looks fascinating, and I am anxious to read about daily life during the Wars of the Roses.
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.
>
> P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.
>
> Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > > >
> > > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > > >
> > > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was hoping to buy as my next book Hicks' book on George...but unfortunately it turned out to be more expensive than I thought...I cant really justify spending that much on a book at the moment...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> My sweet husband actually wants to read more about him!!! How about that, getting an engineer to study British History. I agree about indulging. It makes it so much easier, and a lot more fun. Thanks to a suggestion by Carol, I have just received another old book, "The Yorkist Age" by Paul Murray Kendall. It looks fascinating, and I am anxious to read about daily life during the Wars of the Roses.
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.
>
> P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.
>
> Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > > >
> > > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > > >
> > > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> I was hoping to buy as my next book Hicks' book on George...but unfortunately it turned out to be more expensive than I thought...I cant really justify spending that much on a book at the moment...Eileen

Carol responds:

Hi, Eileen. Just curious as to why you would want to buy a book by Hicks after the hatchet job he's done on Richard and the travesty of a biography of Anne. Do you think that he would be more objective about George (or maybe go off in the other direction and make George into the king who should have been)? I might read the book is I could find it in a library, but I wouldn't add to his royalties. But that's just me, I guess.

Carol

Make SURE this is dead people, NOT his secretary! :-]]

> Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:59
>Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>Yep....my husband plays golf. That's an obsession if you ask me. He get's off lightly...his golfing buddies are given lists of jobs to be done before they can play golf. I am way too soft....He does get annoyed with me when Im on my laptop too long...usually when he's hungry...hahahahahahan Eileen
>
>--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> Luckily, my husband has his own obsessions. One secret to a great marriage: indulge your partner's nuttiness.
>>
>> P.S.: When I showed him Richard's reconstructed face, my husband, who often works in London, shouted: "He looks so English!" He was fascinated by the face. Maire.
>>
>> Maire.
>>
>> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>> >
>> > Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>> >
>> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
>> > >
>> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>> > > >
>> > > > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>> > > >
>> > > > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From: EileenB
>> > > > > To:
>> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
>> > > > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
>> > > > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
>> > > > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
>> > > > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
>> > > > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
>> > > > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
>> > > > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Well this kind of proves my point. I posted off forum for a reason, but
now these two ladies break the confidence rules and display their
feelings for one and all to see.
I did not.
This kind of behaviour causes flaming and goodness knows what else,
which is not the object of this forum.
Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
She announced I have upset everybody, and I know this is not true from
personal emails I have had from other members. Which I will not discuss
here.
Perhaps if she and Claire Jordan would refrain from thinking themselves
correct about everything, with Claire telling me she knows more about
male sexuality than I do, and post a little less attacking other
people's positions, things might improve.
Enough said.
Try and remember what this forum is about and stick to discussing the
man and what we know about him, not speculations based on rumour and
gossip. Please. Can we just wait until all the details of the discovery
are published? And do not keep killing him again and again. Please.
The rest is silence. Good bye.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 25/02/2013 21:57, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Paul
>
>
>> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm,
>> testy.
> Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to
> me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the
> wall! Facebook is so much easier!
>
> He's been emailing me, too - initially for a quite civilised and friendly
> debate about the circumstances under which it was appropriate to call
> someone gay or bi, which I quite enjoyed, but deteriorating into being quite
> abusive. He may be suffering from depression, in which case he has my
> profound sympathy, but if so he's taking it out on all and sundry.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Paul


> Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.

I just feel I should point out that this is completely illogical, since
Ishita only commented on Paul onlist in the first place because he had
*already* been sending her mails which she felt were abusive. His objection
to me seems to be mainly because I come downstairs in the moring and do a
batch of posts en bloc, and this irritates him for some reason. I don't
want to have to block mails from him since this would presumably mean I
wouldn't get his posts-to-list either, and I might then miss some good point
he is making.

Claire I was, like Christine, considering giving it another go to see how things went but you have just underlined why I made a decision to take a break.

There's a poison creeping in and I know not how it will be contained. I sincerely hope it will for I for one have a great respect for the people of the forum and miss them very much. I do hope Neil can sort it out.

Hilary

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Paul
>
>
> > Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
> her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
>
> I just feel I should point out that this is completely illogical, since
> Ishita only commented on Paul onlist in the first place because he had
> *already* been sending her mails which she felt were abusive. His objection
> to me seems to be mainly because I come downstairs in the moring and do a
> batch of posts en bloc, and this irritates him for some reason. I don't
> want to have to block mails from him since this would presumably mean I
> wouldn't get his posts-to-list either, and I might then miss some good point
> he is making.
>

Paul....Please do not leave this forum. By all means take a break...but please make sure it is temporary....Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well this kind of proves my point. I posted off forum for a reason, but
> now these two ladies break the confidence rules and display their
> feelings for one and all to see.
> I did not.
> This kind of behaviour causes flaming and goodness knows what else,
> which is not the object of this forum.
> Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
> her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
> She announced I have upset everybody, and I know this is not true from
> personal emails I have had from other members. Which I will not discuss
> here.
> Perhaps if she and Claire Jordan would refrain from thinking themselves
> correct about everything, with Claire telling me she knows more about
> male sexuality than I do, and post a little less attacking other
> people's positions, things might improve.
> Enough said.
> Try and remember what this forum is about and stick to discussing the
> man and what we know about him, not speculations based on rumour and
> gossip. Please. Can we just wait until all the details of the discovery
> are published? And do not keep killing him again and again. Please.
> The rest is silence. Good bye.
> Paul
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> On 25/02/2013 21:57, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:29 PM
> > Subject: Paul
> >
> >
> >> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm,
> >> testy.
> > Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to
> > me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the
> > wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> >
> > He's been emailing me, too - initially for a quite civilised and friendly
> > debate about the circumstances under which it was appropriate to call
> > someone gay or bi, which I quite enjoyed, but deteriorating into being quite
> > abusive. He may be suffering from depression, in which case he has my
> > profound sympathy, but if so he's taking it out on all and sundry.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Hilary....please do not leave the Forum....I enjoy your posts so much...Come on...nothing is too bad on here it cannot be sorted....Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Claire I was, like Christine, considering giving it another go to see how things went but you have just underlined why I made a decision to take a break.
>
> There's a poison creeping in and I know not how it will be contained. I sincerely hope it will for I for one have a great respect for the people of the forum and miss them very much. I do hope Neil can sort it out.
>
> Hilary
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > Cc: paul.bale@
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Paul
> >
> >
> > > Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
> > her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
> >
> > I just feel I should point out that this is completely illogical, since
> > Ishita only commented on Paul onlist in the first place because he had
> > *already* been sending her mails which she felt were abusive. His objection
> > to me seems to be mainly because I come downstairs in the moring and do a
> > batch of posts en bloc, and this irritates him for some reason. I don't
> > want to have to block mails from him since this would presumably mean I
> > wouldn't get his posts-to-list either, and I might then miss some good point
> > he is making.
> >
>

Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was £30. On the other hand despite his hideous hatchet job on Richard I understand that the Clarence book is good. The trouble is that there is a
dearth of books on George...and I would like to read a decent book on him....I cannot help it...but I am rather fond of George....imperfect in ways but I would like to know more about him.

I will probably borrow this book from the Society's library....Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > I was hoping to buy as my next book Hicks' book on George...but unfortunately it turned out to be more expensive than I thought...I cant really justify spending that much on a book at the moment...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Eileen. Just curious as to why you would want to buy a book by Hicks after the hatchet job he's done on Richard and the travesty of a biography of Anne. Do you think that he would be more objective about George (or maybe go off in the other direction and make George into the king who should have been)? I might read the book is I could find it in a library, but I wouldn't add to his royalties. But that's just me, I guess.
>
> Carol
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> £30.

There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
much of an improvement.

Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > £30.
>
> There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> much of an improvement.
>

Eileen,

How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!

There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.

Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!

I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.





or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > £30.
> >
> > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > much of an improvement.
> >
>

Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....

That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?

You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>
> How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
>
> There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
>
> Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
>
> I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
>
>
>
>
>
> or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > £30.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > much of an improvement.
> > >
> >
>

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.

I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
situation.

Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.

Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.

All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.

As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
>
> That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
>
> You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen,
> >
> > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> >
> > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> >
> > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> >
> > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > £30.
> > > >
> > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > much of an improvement.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes...The finding of Richard has been very bitter/sweet....and very emotional. Imagine...an old friend...and then you discover the full extent...and I think Phillipa spoke for some of us...well for me definately...that she did not see the bones but the man lying there. He was, at the end of the day, a good, generous king...probably one of the best if given half the chance who cared for the plight of the common people.

I think we all will be feeling so much better once Richard has been laid to rest again....Eileen



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: hjnatdat
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> > morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> > proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
>
> I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
> bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
> situation.
>

Oh yes, and properly, and with the pomp and circumstance that should be given to a king. It would be lovely to be there, but we can watch from afar. Will it really take a year????

On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Yes...The finding of Richard has been very bitter/sweet....and very emotional. Imagine...an old friend...and then you discover the full extent...and I think Phillipa spoke for some of us...well for me definately...that she did not see the bones but the man lying there. He was, at the end of the day, a good, generous king...probably one of the best if given half the chance who cared for the plight of the common people.

I think we all will be feeling so much better once Richard has been laid to rest again....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: hjnatdat
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> > morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> > proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
>
> I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
> bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
> situation.
>

Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.

If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.

Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...

Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
>
> Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
>
> All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
>
> As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> >
> > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> >
> > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > >
> > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > >
> > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > >
> > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > >
> > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > £30.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I do not think I know anything. I am more than willing to accept that I am a complete novice when it comes to Richard. I have no idea where sexuality comes into this discussion at all.

I was asked to apologize and that's the reason this incident got public.
Anyway, again, I apologize for whatever Paul wants me to apologize for and bid good bye.

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

On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:33 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Well this kind of proves my point. I posted off forum for a reason, but
> now these two ladies break the confidence rules and display their
> feelings for one and all to see.
> I did not.
> This kind of behaviour causes flaming and goodness knows what else,
> which is not the object of this forum.
> Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
> her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
> She announced I have upset everybody, and I know this is not true from
> personal emails I have had from other members. Which I will not discuss
> here.
> Perhaps if she and Claire Jordan would refrain from thinking themselves
> correct about everything, with Claire telling me she knows more about
> male sexuality than I do, and post a little less attacking other
> people's positions, things might improve.
> Enough said.
> Try and remember what this forum is about and stick to discussing the
> man and what we know about him, not speculations based on rumour and
> gossip. Please. Can we just wait until all the details of the discovery
> are published? And do not keep killing him again and again. Please.
> The rest is silence. Good bye.
> Paul
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> On 25/02/2013 21:57, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:29 PM
> > Subject: Paul
> >
> >
> >> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm,
> >> testy.
> > Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to
> > me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the
> > wall! Facebook is so much easier!
> >
> > He's been emailing me, too - initially for a quite civilised and friendly
> > debate about the circumstances under which it was appropriate to call
> > someone gay or bi, which I quite enjoyed, but deteriorating into being quite
> > abusive. He may be suffering from depression, in which case he has my
> > profound sympathy, but if so he's taking it out on all and sundry.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...The finding of Richard has been very bitter/sweet....and very emotional. Imagine...an old friend...and then you discover the full extent...and I think Phillipa spoke for some of us...well for me definately...that she did not see the bones but the man lying there. He was, at the end of the day, a good, generous king...probably one of the best if given half the chance who cared for the plight of the common people.
>
> I think we all will be feeling so much better once Richard has been laid to rest again....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: hjnatdat
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> > > morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> > > proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> >
> > I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
> > bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
> > situation.
> >
>

Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? Just come up with that.
George seems more and more a very vulnerable person, if that's the right word. Perhaps he and Richard were scarred more than we think by their father's death? I 've always thought Liz's analogy of the Kennedys was spot on. If one child fell, then the others were expected to pick up the baton, at whatever the cost.
That's why this whole area is so intriguing. 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 16:32
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.

If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.

Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
>
> Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
>
> All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
>
> As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> >
> > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> >
> > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen,
> > >
> > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > >
> > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > >
> > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > >
> > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > or--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > £30.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen wrote:

> [snip]
> If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.
>
> Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...

Carol responds:

George's attainder specifically charges him with calling Edward illegitimate (which would have made him the rightful king, at least in theory, but at that point I doubt that Parliament would have overthrown Edward in favor of George even if he could provide evidence to back up the charge).

I agree with you that George probably didn't know about the Eleanor Butler affair or he and Warwick would have used it to attack Edward's already hated marriage. It wouldn't have helped George's claim, though, because it didn't affect Edward's right to the throne. His first son, Prince Edward, was still a baby when Warwick died at Barnet. Neither George nor Warwick was apparently concerned with the child's legitimacy. 1478, when Stillington was arrested and George executed, was another matter.

Do you have the quotation from Cecily's will about Edward being her husband's son? It would be very helpful.

Carol

Well yes Maire...and when you think on it...a lot of Kings/Queens/Nobles remains have been lost. Anne of Bohemia for instance...her bones have gone probably stolen in the Georgian period, George and Isobel's remains are lost...So ironically Richard's remains that were lost when Greyfriars was destroyed have been preserved much better than those that were buried in seemingly safe places.....Its strange isnt it...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
> So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...The finding of Richard has been very bitter/sweet....and very emotional. Imagine...an old friend...and then you discover the full extent...and I think Phillipa spoke for some of us...well for me definately...that she did not see the bones but the man lying there. He was, at the end of the day, a good, generous king...probably one of the best if given half the chance who cared for the plight of the common people.
> >
> > I think we all will be feeling so much better once Richard has been laid to rest again....Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: hjnatdat
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> > > > morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> > > > proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > >
> > > I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
> > > bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
> > > situation.
> > >
> >
>

Hilary..do you mean Hicks?

Id never thought of that...Warwick feeding George with that...George should have gone to Cis in person and asked the question...Maybe he did...Maybe he couldnt...

Yes..I think George was vulnerable...On one hand he had Edward, the warrior king..surrounded by his brood of beautiful children....and then Richard an altogether more able and stronger man than he, George, could ever hope to be....No wonder he maybe lost the plot at times. He comes across as very dissatisfied with his lot. This is why I would like to learn more about him...I would like to know how he ticked..Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? Just come up with that.
> George seems more and more a very vulnerable person, if that's the right word. Perhaps he and Richard were scarred more than we think by their father's death? I 've always thought Liz's analogy of the Kennedys was spot on. If one child fell, then the others were expected to pick up the baton, at whatever the cost.
> That's why this whole area is so intriguing. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 16:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.
>
> If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.
>
> Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
> >
> > Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
> >
> > All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
> >
> > As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> > >
> > > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> > >
> > > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen,
> > > >
> > > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > > >
> > > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > > >
> > > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > or--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > > £30.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
> So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.

Carol responds:

I agree that the proposed coffin design is beautiful, but it hasn't officially been approved yet. (Other proposals may be submitted, but I don't know of any, and there's still a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole to go through.)

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html#axzz2M1gvemfm

There's a lovely slide show of all sides of the proposed tomb on the main R III Society website for those who haven't yet seen it:

http://www.richardiii.net/whats_new.php

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? [snip]

Carol responds:

But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?

Carol

Ah...now that is something I learned from this Forum...I cannot remember who wrote it. But I filed it away in my brain...I have had a look at part of Cecily's Will from the National Archives and unfortunately it does not mention it. I pretty sure Marie would know for certain one way or the other....?

Here is the link...as you can see it is quite a long document...
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/neville.htm
Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Do you have the quotation from Cecily's will about Edward being her husband's son? It would be very helpful.
>
> Carol
>

No, I meant me. I literally did just come up with it. I'm flattered that you should think I was Hicks (well perhaps  not really).
 
Dorothy, in her book, has George looking after the thin little boy (Richard - strangely at one point she talks about his protruding shoulder blades) and then gradually becoming jealous of him because he seems to get everthing right when pleasing Edward, and George gets everything wrong. But George still has an affection for Richard and seeks to  be the favoured big brother too.  Worth reading.
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:12
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

Hilary..do you mean Hicks?

Id never thought of that...Warwick feeding George with that...George should have gone to Cis in person and asked the question...Maybe he did...Maybe he couldnt...

Yes..I think George was vulnerable...On one hand he had Edward, the warrior king..surrounded by his brood of beautiful children....and then Richard an altogether more able and stronger man than he, George, could ever hope to be....No wonder he maybe lost the plot at times. He comes across as very dissatisfied with his lot. This is why I would like to learn more about him...I would like to know how he ticked..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? Just come up with that.
> George seems more and more a very vulnerable person, if that's the right word. Perhaps he and Richard were scarred more than we think by their father's death? I 've always thought Liz's analogy of the Kennedys was spot on. If one child fell, then the others were expected to pick up the baton, at whatever the cost.
> That's why this whole area is so intriguing. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 16:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.
>
> If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.
>
> Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
> >
> > Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
> >
> > All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
> >
> > As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> > >
> > > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> > >
> > > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen,
> > > >
> > > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > > >
> > > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > > >
> > > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > or--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > > £30.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I shall consult Hughes, and Kendall and one or two others.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:19
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? [snip]

Carol responds:

But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?

Carol

Paul, Paul, Paul, I do hope you come back!  While I might not always agree with you, I always enjoy your posts.  And I look forward to your script being made into a movie!
Vickie

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Paul

 
Well this kind of proves my point. I posted off forum for a reason, but
now these two ladies break the confidence rules and display their
feelings for one and all to see.
I did not.
This kind of behaviour causes flaming and goodness knows what else,
which is not the object of this forum.
Ishita's apology clearly is not one, and my emails to her have only told
her I found her post about me personally slanderous. True, not abusive.
She announced I have upset everybody, and I know this is not true from
personal emails I have had from other members. Which I will not discuss
here.
Perhaps if she and Claire Jordan would refrain from thinking themselves
correct about everything, with Claire telling me she knows more about
male sexuality than I do, and post a little less attacking other
people's positions, things might improve.
Enough said.
Try and remember what this forum is about and stick to discussing the
man and what we know about him, not speculations based on rumour and
gossip. Please. Can we just wait until all the details of the discovery
are published? And do not keep killing him again and again. Please.
The rest is silence. Good bye.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 25/02/2013 21:57, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Paul
>
>
>> Well, Paul wants me to apologize to the forum for calling him , umm,
>> testy.
> Even though I stay completely unrepentant and his abusive personal emails to
> me are completely unmerited, I will go ahead and take my comment off the
> wall! Facebook is so much easier!
>
> He's been emailing me, too - initially for a quite civilised and friendly
> debate about the circumstances under which it was appropriate to call
> someone gay or bi, which I quite enjoyed, but deteriorating into being quite
> abusive. He may be suffering from depression, in which case he has my
> profound sympathy, but if so he's taking it out on all and sundry.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

If she did say it, and obviously we would need evidence to say she definitely did, could it have been " you are not your father's son" meaning that his father would never have married someone like EW in the same circumstances?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?
>
> Carol
>

I've come across that on numerous occasions...But can I remember where...what book? Would Croyland have mentioned it...? Its hard when your trying to cook at the same time as post...Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I shall consult Hughes, and Kendall and one or two others.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> I agree that the proposed coffin design is beautiful, but it hasn't
> officially been approved yet. (Other proposals may be submitted, but I
> don't know of any, and there's still a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole to
> go through.)

Personally I don't like the fact that the gold design on the top seems to be
just a flat, shallow inlay. In time, it will wear off. Imo his details
ought to be cut in deeply, so that they will still be there when future
archaeologists look at it thousands of years from now. And I'd go for
granite, myself, for the same reason.

Oh Lord, I think you could not be a Ricardian, and see those remains as a man, a living, breathing man, treated terribly, and buried hastily. I was so relieved when the DNA came back positive, and it REALLY REAALY was the man. Then the reconstruction, really was awesome - to see what he probably really looked like. The uncle I adored as a young kid, had those blue eyes, black hard and narrow face. It was not a hard face, just serious and thin, and he lit up when he smiled. I bet Richard did too - no matter how many or the condition of his teeth!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero



So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Yes...The finding of Richard has been very bitter/sweet....and very emotional. Imagine...an old friend...and then you discover the full extent...and I think Phillipa spoke for some of us...well for me definately...that she did not see the bones but the man lying there. He was, at the end of the day, a good, generous king...probably one of the best if given half the chance who cared for the plight of the common people.
>
> I think we all will be feeling so much better once Richard has been laid to rest again....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: hjnatdat
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every
> > > morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the
> > > proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> >
> > I think everybody who feels an emotional connection to Richard is still a
> > bit freaked-out at the moment - it takes a while to get used to the new
> > situation.
> >
>

Noooooes..:0)..Lol...what I meant was....Hughes...Who He? I thought you might have got muddled between Hughes and Hicks...I have never heard of Hughes...Can you enlighten me...Eileen
P.S. Must remember person I am posting to is not actually sitting in the room with me...

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No, I meant me. I literally did just come up with it. I'm flattered that you should think I was Hicks (well perhaps  not really).
>  
> Dorothy, in her book, has George looking after the thin little boy (Richard - strangely at one point she talks about his protruding shoulder blades) and then gradually becoming jealous of him because he seems to get everthing right when pleasing Edward, and George gets everything wrong. But George still has an affection for Richard and seeks to  be the favoured big brother too.  Worth reading.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:12
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary..do you mean Hicks?
>
> Id never thought of that...Warwick feeding George with that...George should have gone to Cis in person and asked the question...Maybe he did...Maybe he couldnt...
>
> Yes..I think George was vulnerable...On one hand he had Edward, the warrior king..surrounded by his brood of beautiful children....and then Richard an altogether more able and stronger man than he, George, could ever hope to be....No wonder he maybe lost the plot at times. He comes across as very dissatisfied with his lot. This is why I would like to learn more about him...I would like to know how he ticked..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? Just come up with that.
> > George seems more and more a very vulnerable person, if that's the right word. Perhaps he and Richard were scarred more than we think by their father's death? I 've always thought Liz's analogy of the Kennedys was spot on. If one child fell, then the others were expected to pick up the baton, at whatever the cost.
> > That's why this whole area is so intriguing. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 16:32
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.
> >
> > If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.
> >
> > Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
> > >
> > > Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
> > >
> > > All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
> > >
> > > As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> > > >
> > > > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> > > >
> > > > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen,
> > > > >
> > > > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > or--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > > > £30.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mancini - Michael Jones in Bosworth, PMK (I'm pretty sure) the same. According to Sean Gillingham Michael has been undertaking a re-assessment of the role of Cecily. Jones bases his belief in this and (from More) on the fact that it came from Elizabeth Lambert and there was no reason otherwise for it to be quoted - a bit like the strawberries.
 
I  was just having a light discussion with Eileen - were I writing up my PhD I would have course been discussing the veracity of sources. I've been through this rumour thing with Marie before I think you'll find.
    


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:48
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

If she did say it, and obviously we would need evidence to say she definitely did, could it have been " you are not your father's son" meaning that his father would never have married someone like EW in the same circumstances?

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?
>
> Carol
>

Indeed! Kendall, I'm pretty sure, but which of his? And I've found it in Michael Jones and Hughes (from Mancini). In fact it seems to have been quoted a lot but when you're looking  .... and cooking 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:53
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

I've come across that on numerous occasions...But can I remember where...what book? Would Croyland have mentioned it...? Its hard when your trying to cook at the same time as post...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I shall consult Hughes, and Kendall and one or two others.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage,àwind George up and then use him? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But did she really say that or was it just another rumor? Do you recall the source, Hilary?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hughes is the one who wrote the dreadful alchemy book about plotting Richard. He bases some of the plotting around Cis's declarations.

There are quite a few I wouldn't mind being, but not Michael Hicks!



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Noooooes..:0)..Lol...what I meant was....Hughes...Who He? I thought you might have got muddled between Hughes and Hicks...I have never heard of Hughes...Can you enlighten me...Eileen
> P.S. Must remember person I am posting to is not actually sitting in the room with me...
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > No, I meant me. I literally did just come up with it. I'm flattered that you should think I was Hicks (well perhaps  not really).
> >  
> > Dorothy, in her book, has George looking after the thin little boy (Richard - strangely at one point she talks about his protruding shoulder blades) and then gradually becoming jealous of him because he seems to get everthing right when pleasing Edward, and George gets everything wrong. But George still has an affection for Richard and seeks to  be the favoured big brother too.  Worth reading.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 17:12
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary..do you mean Hicks?
> >
> > Id never thought of that...Warwick feeding George with that...George should have gone to Cis in person and asked the question...Maybe he did...Maybe he couldnt...
> >
> > Yes..I think George was vulnerable...On one hand he had Edward, the warrior king..surrounded by his brood of beautiful children....and then Richard an altogether more able and stronger man than he, George, could ever hope to be....No wonder he maybe lost the plot at times. He comes across as very dissatisfied with his lot. This is why I would like to learn more about him...I would like to know how he ticked..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes and the hated Hughes also has George believing in the illegitmacy theory. Did Warwick, knowing that Cis had said this in a temper over the Woodville marriage, wind George up and then use him? Just come up with that.
> > > George seems more and more a very vulnerable person, if that's the right word. Perhaps he and Richard were scarred more than we think by their father's death? I 've always thought Liz's analogy of the Kennedys was spot on. If one child fell, then the others were expected to pick up the baton, at whatever the cost.
> > > That's why this whole area is so intriguing. 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 16:32
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Supposition...maybe...but we have to keep asking questions.
> > >
> > > If George and Warwick knew about the pre-contract...and there were rumours ....seems strange they did not bring it up at the time...but how can anyone possible even hazard a guess as to what went on in peoples heads at the time and their reasoning. But I think George knew finally...and Stillington had put him in the picture. Maybe he was not in a position to out it at that time...but it would explain why the belief is that the Woodvilles pushed for George's death.
> > >
> > > Something else I find strange. I read the other night, in Elizabeth Jenkins's "The Princes in the Tower" that one of the accusations that Edward threw at his brother was that George had been saying that Edward was not the true son of his father. I know that this was given out when Richard was Protector...I find it strange that it seemed to have been said on more than one occasion. I do know that Cecily mentioned in her Will that Edward was the true son of her husband...Strange...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I often wondered how George felt abandoned in France by Warwick with a recovering Isabel, couldn't really go home, even if he was getting messages from Edward urging him to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that the hated Hughes does have George and Warwick knowing of the pre-contract and I have to admit it all makes so much more sense if they did. And then George has to live a few more years buttoning his lip until Isabel dies and he goes to pieces. Don't think he ever told little brother though.
> > > >
> > > > All supposition, of course, but it explains a lot - particularly the Woodville enmity to George.
> > > >
> > > > As you say, shall spend some more time with head in fridge.H
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...stay on board Hilary....we have already lost some damn good posters on here...even before this little spate took place. We need to take a chill pill thats for sure. Im sure all will be well in the end....
> > > > >
> > > > > That sounds interesting...I wonder if the Barton Library have it...I could order it at the same time as the Hicks one?
> > > > >
> > > > > You know...Im so fond of Clarence...Sibling rivalry and all that...happens in lots of families and a lot of us can probably identify with that. Well I can. Just imagine...George got wind of the pre-contract. Can you then imagine how it felt for him? He's already been passed over by Warwick...(Warwick probably offered him and Isobel the Crown)...like he was a can of baked beans. And meanwhile, while he was lying banged up in the Tower awaiting his immersion in a barrel of Malmsey....his relations were playing Happy Families at the wedding of Richard and Anne Mowbray..Is it any wonder he was forever feeling ever so slightly miffed at how events turned out. Poor George....I can understand his pain....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > > > > > £30.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > > > > > much of an improvement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I shall consult Hughes, and Kendall and one or two others.

Carol responds:

I was thinking of the chronicles themselves. Vergil, maybe? I seem to recall the word "frenzy" in the original quotation, which may help. I posted some links to online sources the other day. Several of them, including Vergil, can be found in the American branch's online library, http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh Lord, I think you could not be a Ricardian, and see those remains as a man, a living, breathing man, treated terribly, and buried hastily. I was so relieved when the DNA came back positive, and it REALLY REAALY was the man. Then the reconstruction, really was awesome - to see what he probably really looked like. The uncle I adored as a young kid, had those blue eyes, black hard and narrow face. It was not a hard face, just serious and thin, and he lit up when he smiled. I bet Richard did too - no matter how many or the condition of his teeth!

Carol responds:

I'm guessing that "black hard" is a typo for "black hair." But from what we can tell based on the portraits, his hair was actually a light to medium brown and slightly wavy. I think the facial reconstruction is excellent, but he needs a new wig that doesn't look like it came from a department store mannequin! And since it seems that the front tooth fell out in the grave, not while he was alive, his smile would have been quite charming. (Rous would have leaped on that detail if the tooth were missing.)

Carol

Obviously, I meant black hair. My cousin, his sons, have his facial structure and blue eyes, but their mom's hair, lighter. I will try and find a close up of the eldest and send it to you.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh Lord, I think you could not be a Ricardian, and see those remains as a man, a living, breathing man, treated terribly, and buried hastily. I was so relieved when the DNA came back positive, and it REALLY REAALY was the man. Then the reconstruction, really was awesome - to see what he probably really looked like. The uncle I adored as a young kid, had those blue eyes, black hard and narrow face. It was not a hard face, just serious and thin, and he lit up when he smiled. I bet Richard did too - no matter how many or the condition of his teeth!

Carol responds:

I'm guessing that "black hard" is a typo for "black hair." But from what we can tell based on the portraits, his hair was actually a light to medium brown and slightly wavy. I think the facial reconstruction is excellent, but he needs a new wig that doesn't look like it came from a department store mannequin! And since it seems that the front tooth fell out in the grave, not while he was alive, his smile would have been quite charming. (Rous would have leaped on that detail if the tooth were missing.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> But from what we can tell based on the portraits, his hair was actually a
> light to medium brown and slightly wavy.

And slightly reddish.

> And since it seems that the front tooth fell out in the grave,

Surely if it fell out in the grave the team would have found it? Teeth are
very durable and they did find some quite small bits of bone, and the
mystery bit of metal, so I wouldn't have thought they'd miss something as
large and obvious as a tooth. It could have been knocked out at Bosworth,
of course.

> not while he was alive, his smile would have been quite charming. (Rous
> would have leaped on that detail if the tooth were missing.)

Nah - nearly everybody would have had at least some teeth missing, so if he
made a big deal out of a missing tooth being ugly or a sign of villainy he
would immediately have offended some powerful patron. And people who spend
their lives around horses - let alone in border skirmishes - do tend to end
up with a few minor bits missing.

Besides, a smile with a missing tooth is potentially even more charming, in
a faintly piratical way. Minor imperfections add to the cuteness-factor.
[Note to any Americans who don't already know - here in Britain, and except
in very extreme cases, we tend to let our teeth do their own thing so
imperfect smiles are not seen as unattractive unless the teeth are visibly
decaying, or sticking out all round like a pelmet.]

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Mancini - Michael Jones in Bosworth, PMK (I'm pretty sure) the same. According to Sean Gillingham Michael has been undertaking a re-assessment of the role of Cecily. Jones bases his belief in this and (from More) on the fact that it came from Elizabeth Lambert and there was no reason otherwise for it to be quoted - a bit like the strawberries. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite follow the structure of your first two sentences. Are you saying that the "frenzy" quotation comes from Mancini? Then it's definitely hearsay since it occurred (if at all) nineteen years earlier--the secret May marriage was in 1464 and Mancini was in London only for a few months during 1483. And, of course, since he seems to have spoken no English, he would have heard his version of the rumor in Latin!

Regarding the strawberries, my own unprovable view is that they're added for verisimilitude, rather like pillows in the murder scene. (I'd add the privy, but I think that image served a different purpose.) It's extremely unfortunate that we have no other detailed accounts to tell us how much, if any, came from Morton and how much from More's imagination.

I don't understand the "fact" that "it" (the "frenzy" rumor?) came from Elizabeth Lambert, either. We have no record of anything that she said, and the whole interview with her in More is an imaginary humanist dialogue. (He has her living in poverty; her father's will proves otherwise.)

I hope that I haven't misread your post, but it sounds as if Jones is presenting a very shaky argument.

Anyway, thanks for finding the source of the quotation. Can you quote the passage in context--not More but Mancini--since AFAIK there's no online version of Mancini's "Occupatione"?

Carol

How nice to have my name along with Richard's as hero.
Makes me feel proud:-)


On 26/02/2013 17:16, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>>
>> So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree that the proposed coffin design is beautiful, but it hasn't officially been approved yet. (Other proposals may be submitted, but I don't know of any, and there's still a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole to go through.)
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html#axzz2M1gvemfm
>
> There's a lovely slide show of all sides of the proposed tomb on the main R III Society website for those who haven't yet seen it:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/whats_new.php
>
> Carol
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Whether that tomb design is used or another, this time I'm getting in my contribution so I can actually say I did something positive for Richard the Third! We are very lucky to be living in these times - despite all the troubles in the "real world." Maire.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> How nice to have my name along with Richard's as hero.
> Makes me feel proud:-)
>
>
> On 26/02/2013 17:16, justcarol67 wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >>
> >> So well said, Eileen. I do think Phillipa was very moving when she said she didn't see a pile of bones...I didn't either. And just think - he'll be entombed in that beautiful stone coffin for all eternity. Truly a miracle! Maire.
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree that the proposed coffin design is beautiful, but it hasn't officially been approved yet. (Other proposals may be submitted, but I don't know of any, and there's still a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole to go through.)
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html#axzz2M1gvemfm
> >
> > There's a lovely slide show of all sides of the proposed tomb on the main R III Society website for those who haven't yet seen it:
> >
> > http://www.richardiii.net/whats_new.php
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Carol,
Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 20:11
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Mancini - Michael Jones in Bosworth, PMK (I'm pretty sure) the same. According to Sean Gillingham Michael has been undertaking a re-assessment of the role of Cecily. Jones bases his belief in this and (from More) on the fact that it came from Elizabeth Lambert and there was no reason otherwise for it to be quoted - a bit like the strawberries. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite follow the structure of your first two sentences. Are you saying that the "frenzy" quotation comes from Mancini? Then it's definitely hearsay since it occurred (if at all) nineteen years earlier--the secret May marriage was in 1464 and Mancini was in London only for a few months during 1483. And, of course, since he seems to have spoken no English, he would have heard his version of the rumor in Latin!

Regarding the strawberries, my own unprovable view is that they're added for verisimilitude, rather like pillows in the murder scene. (I'd add the privy, but I think that image served a different purpose.) It's extremely unfortunate that we have no other detailed accounts to tell us how much, if any, came from Morton and how much from More's imagination.

I don't understand the "fact" that "it" (the "frenzy" rumor?) came from Elizabeth Lambert, either. We have no record of anything that she said, and the whole interview with her in More is an imaginary humanist dialogue. (He has her living in poverty; her father's will proves otherwise.)

I hope that I haven't misread your post, but it sounds as if Jones is presenting a very shaky argument.

Anyway, thanks for finding the source of the quotation. Can you quote the passage in context--not More but Mancini--since AFAIK there's no online version of Mancini's "Occupatione"?

Carol

Eileen & Hilary

I found this information at the TimeRef site, which is a Medieval site of timelines although its timespan cover a wider period and there is more information with links to other sites. Dorothy Davies has supplied the information on George, Duke of Clarence. http://www.timeref.com/hpr1425.htm

If you would prefer not to subsidise Hicks, and who could blame you, an unpublished thesis of Clarence might exist. It's worth investigating.

The Holinshead text can be found at The Holinshead Project
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/texts.php?text1=1577_4936
Elaine

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>
> How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
>
> There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
>
> Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
>
> I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
>
>
>
>
>
> or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > £30.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > much of an improvement.
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol,
> Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
>
Carol responds:

Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).

Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?

I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.

It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.

Carol

Thank you Elaine....I have downloaded and saved both....Looks like this is going to be it for the timebeing...The Hicks book is not recommended. Poor old George...Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen & Hilary
>
> I found this information at the TimeRef site, which is a Medieval site of timelines although its timespan cover a wider period and there is more information with links to other sites. Dorothy Davies has supplied the information on George, Duke of Clarence. http://www.timeref.com/hpr1425.htm
>
> If you would prefer not to subsidise Hicks, and who could blame you, an unpublished thesis of Clarence might exist. It's worth investigating.
>
> The Holinshead text can be found at The Holinshead Project
> http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/texts.php?text1=1577_4936
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen,
> >
> > How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
> >
> > There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
> >
> > Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
> >
> > I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > or--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > > £30.
> > > >
> > > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > > much of an improvement.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book
Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).
>
> Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?
>
> I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.
>
> It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.
>
> Carol
>

I'm not at all hostile to you. It just sounded like a bit of a test on sources like my one on the messages at Stony Stratford which I accidentally addressed to you when I was replying to Claire and we went off on all sorts of tangents.
 
So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. Now I seem to recall a similar conversation with Marie a few weeks ago when we were going on about the illegitimacy rumour and I looked it up also as coming from Kendall,  again via More and Mancini. Hughes also uses Mancini. What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past.
 
Honestly, no ill feeling but I'd be the last to claim I have an intimate knowledge of the original sources; I've been taught to trust 'my betters'. Yes, I do some research (though time is limited as I have a job) and my area is historical data relating to demography and psephology (sorry for the mouthful), but I'd never claim to have a detailed knowledge of Ricardian sources like you or Marie. I just have never had the time.   With all good wishes  I value your input and enjoy a debate even if we don't always agree.  H.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 22:04
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol,
> Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
>
Carol responds:

Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).

Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?

I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.

It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.

Carol

So you've come up with the same as me Eileen!  I've written to Carol to clarify things. Cheers H



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 22:37
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book
Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).
>
> Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?
>
> I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.
>
> It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.
>
> Carol
>

Thanks so much. I will definitely follow it up.  H



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 21:55
Subject: George, Duke of Clarence WAS: Paul/Richard the Hero

 

Eileen & Hilary

I found this information at the TimeRef site, which is a Medieval site of timelines although its timespan cover a wider period and there is more information with links to other sites. Dorothy Davies has supplied the information on George, Duke of Clarence. http://www.timeref.com/hpr1425.htm

If you would prefer not to subsidise Hicks, and who could blame you, an unpublished thesis of Clarence might exist. It's worth investigating.

The Holinshead text can be found at The Holinshead Project
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/texts.php?text1=1577_4936
Elaine

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Eileen,
>
> How better to lure me back than a book about Clarence!
>
> There's a good little book by Dorothy Davies called 'Death be Pardoner to Me'. Now Dorothy is a medium and also sec to the Foundation, but it's actually not at all a bad book and very good at describing the relationship between George and Richard. It's written as fiction (not like Dening)but Dorothy says it was 'dictated' to her by George. She's also done one on Rivers who she claims to be her alter ego. She reckons she lived in the fifteenth century.
>
> Sounds mad I know, but we're all mad on here!
>
> I'm upset about Paul too. I used to look forward to his posts every morning. He is a sad loss, I do hope he comes back. And perhaps the proposed new system will make folks less tetchy. H.
>
>
>
>
>
> or--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Thank you....hmmmm...I really did not want to go that high for a book on Clarence...Not at this particular moment anyway...It annoying really...Off to do the Lottery....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol...On one hand I am loath to put royalties in Hicks' pocket which
> > > > was why I was hoping to get a cheap 2nd hand copy of the Clarence
> > > > book...unfortunately this is not the case as the cheapest one I saw was
> > > > £30.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of copies on abebooks for about £26 - not that that's
> > > much of an improvement.
> > >
> >
>

Yep...I suppose we should both now go to More's History/Novelette to look up what exactly he has to say...Actually I would rather stick pins in me eyes....:0)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So you've come up with the same as me Eileen!  I've written to Carol to clarify things. Cheers H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 22:37
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book
> Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > > Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).
> >
> > Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?
> >
> > I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.
> >
> > It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ooooops sorry forgot to say but the book I quoted from by Anne Crawford : Yorkists the History of a Dynasty looks like a good read...I might well look up and buy a copy...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yep...I suppose we should both now go to More's History/Novelette to look up what exactly he has to say...Actually I would rather stick pins in me eyes....:0)
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So you've come up with the same as me Eileen!  I've written to Carol to clarify things. Cheers H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 22:37
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book
> > Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol,
> > > > Then you must take up your arguments with Jones, Kendall, Mancini and More. I have never claimed to be an interpreter of sources, in the English university system that is professorial level.  The higher you go, the narrower the area of research. Below that we discuss how reputable historians interpret them and Jones, Pollard, Hicks, Ross and Hughes are certainly at that level (even if personally you don't agree with them). I'm sorry you find my sentence structure difficult to interpret. I try to be succinct as there are so many posts. I think we all have differing opinions and I was just expressing mine to Eileen in quite a light-hearted debate.  Cheers H.
> > > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Hilary, I don't want to get into the same sort of misunderstanding that we've already witnessed between other posters. I was merely asking for clarification (and posting my own views on the strawberries, not arguing with Kendall, Mancini, and More--Jones, possibly! {smile]).
> > >
> > > Let me try again. Can you clarify for me which "fact" Elizabeth Lambert is supposed to have revealed and to whom? Are you (or Jones) saying that she is the source of the rumor that Mancini reported?
> > >
> > > I'm still puzzled by your seemingly hostile responses to my posts. After all, a thread is a thread and not a personal discussion between you and any other particular poster, and I was just trying (as before in the messages thread) to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way and share my views on More, Mancini et al. without expecting you to agree with them.
> > >
> > > It may help if you understand that only the first part of my post was addressed specifically to you. The rest was my own thoughts on the subject. that's just the way my mind works.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen

Carol responds:

Thank you, Eileen. That was all I wanted to know. It seems clear to me that we can dismiss the whole story for the reasons I mentioned earlier: Mancini arrived in England nineteen years after the supposed incident and his "information" was clearly just gossip. More's interview with Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) was pure fiction sd sre all the dialogues in his "History"--invented dialogues are a humanist convention. Now that I know where to look, I'll see for myself what they have to say, but I very much doubt that it will change my mind. The date for Mancini is definitely 1483 just after Edward IV's death. He left just before Richard's coronation as far as can be determined.

Carol

Your welcome Carol....But we shall have to agree to disagree about dismissing the story. It remains for me one of the mysteries/stories that I will remain open minded about, although if you tortured me into giving you a decision I would probably opt for Cecily being innocent of adultery...but human beings being human I still think truth is stranger than fiction so I shall retain a little smigin of doubt...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > I have gleaned from reading a couple of pages online that Anne Crawford in her book Yorkists: A history of a Dynasty that it is in More's History that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the story of Cicely's rage at Edward's marriage. Dominic Mancini who was in London either in 1464 or 1483 (the date varies but I do not have the time to research which is correct) is responsible for the story of Cicely falling into a "frenzy"....These were only lighthearted comments as Hilary says and I really do not have the time to look any further into this matter but I hope the above helps...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you, Eileen. That was all I wanted to know. It seems clear to me that we can dismiss the whole story for the reasons I mentioned earlier: Mancini arrived in England nineteen years after the supposed incident and his "information" was clearly just gossip. More's interview with Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) was pure fiction sd sre all the dialogues in his "History"--invented dialogues are a humanist convention. Now that I know where to look, I'll see for myself what they have to say, but I very much doubt that it will change my mind. The date for Mancini is definitely 1483 just after Edward IV's death. He left just before Richard's coronation as far as can be determined.
>
> Carol
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

[snip]
>  
> So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]

Carol responds:

Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).

The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).

I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> [snip] I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
>
> The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).

Carol again:

There seems to be some confusion here. The story of Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) precedes the (imagined) dialogue between Edward and his mother in More, but instead of falling into a frenzy and denying that he's her son as in Mancini, More's Cecily "seing the king so set [on marrying Elizabeth Woodville] that she coulde not pull him backe, so hyghelye she dysdained it, that vnder pretect of her duetye to Godwarde, shee deuised to disturbe this mariage, and rather to help that he shold mary one dame Elizabeth Lucy, whom the king had also not long before gotten with child."

This absurd story sets up the straw man argument that Edward was never married to Elizabeth Lucy (his way of disposing of the precontract).

Can someone quote me a passage in which Jones (or some other author) claims that Elizabeth Lambert is the source of the story about Cecily's telling Edward that he was illegitimate?

I know that this thread started as a light conversation between two posters, but I'm starting to be concerned that serious historians are misrepresenting the facts.

Hilary, I know you're busy (as we all are), but could you look up that passage in Jones for me? Don't worry about Kendall. I've already consulted him. He only quotes the relevant passage by Mancini about the duchess declaring in a frenzy that Edward was conceived in adultery and was "unworthy of the honor of kingship" (quoted in Kendall p.263). Kendall says nothing about More and merely notes Mancini's categorical assertion as curious.

I'm just wondering how poor Elizabeth Lambert ("Jane Shore") got saddled with relating a bit of gossip from Mancini. I'll try to find a modern English edition of More because I can't find any such thing in the original version, which gives me eyestrain in any case.

I hope people understand that I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this new mystery.

Carol

Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
 
He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
 
He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
 
He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
 
Hope this helps. H. 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Hilary Jones wrote:

[snip]
>  
> So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]

Carol responds:

Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).

The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).

I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.

Carol

Hilary what is the books title....it sounds interesting...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
>  
> He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
>  
> He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
> The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
>  
> Hope this helps. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >  
> > So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
>
> The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).
>
> I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.

In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.

Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!

"Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).

I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.

Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!

Carol

  I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
to have kicked in. 
  
Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
 Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.


  I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.

   In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 

  In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
[Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 

I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.

I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>
>--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
>>
>> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>> >
>> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>> >
>> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>> >
>> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > From: EileenB
>> > > To:
>> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: Paul
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
>> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
>> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
>> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
>> > >
>> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
>> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
>> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
>> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
>> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Michael K Jones  Bosworth 1485. One of the best, I think. He's a battle historian above all. and was one who helped find the real Bosworth.  Should still be on amazon for not very much (softcover) 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 15:18
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

Hilary what is the books title....it sounds interesting...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
>  
> He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
>  
> He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
> The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
>  
> Hope this helps. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > à
> > So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
>
> The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).
>
> I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, Hilary, I'm struggling with this. I haven't read Jones' book, and I must - my 'to read' stack is enormous - but is he saying that Jane Shore/Elizabeth Lambert ( Jabeth Shorbert?!) is reporting to More something that was allegedly said in 1464?


I'm just thinking in type here and not expecting you to have the answers:- but surely if Mancini was in England before Edward IV died what was his brief? It couldn't have been his mission to "make sense of the happenings of the Summer of 1483" because none of those momentous events had happened when he first arrived.

I know that there is a possibility that he was here to do something else and was asked to write a retrospective report in the light of subsequent events. In that case, he may never have been writing 'from notes', as it were, but relying on memory, supposition and gossip.

I don't know. Michael Jones knows a hell of a lot more than I do and is more qualified but it doesn't sound right, somehow.

Mind you, I don't agree with him about Edward IV's illegitimacy, either...




--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
>  
> He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
>  
> He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
> The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
>  
> Hope this helps. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >  
> > So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
>
> The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).
>
> I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of
> the lady Ricardians, however in some cases,
to a relative NEWCOMER it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction
Syndrome' MAY, on occasion,
to have kicked in.

No, definitely not. All those attracted to Richard believe him to have been
a Good Boy - sometimes to the point of believing him to have been improbably
saintly and a bit wet.

> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious
> Injustice'.

That, definitely. If the Tudors had stuck to saying "He wasn't very good
with money, we're not sure if his claim to the throne was valid and even if
it was we deny all Yorkist claims" then the two-year-king would probably
just have been a footnote in history, like poor little Edward VI. But by
telling lies about him (and whatever you think of what happened to the two
boys, much of the Tudor version of Richard is demonstrably lies) they made
him a victim of injustice, and therefore a cause that people would fight
for. Plus, he was young and the last few years of his life were a horrible
mess filled with bereavement and disaster, so people feel parental and
caring towards him.

Independently, of course, his memory also lived on in the north in the same
way that people remember e.g. Simon Bolivar or Garibaldi, because he became
a symbol of the north's separate identity. Even in the 1940s my mother's
Yorkshire boyfriend spoke of Good King Dick as a proverbially Good Thing,
evidently as a folk memory rather than a modern revision.

Speaking for myself, I am quite offended at being called a "lady Ricardian". What the heck is one of those?

And it would only be 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' if he was a 'Bad Boy'. ;-)

And please may I echo Carol's plea that you refrain from capitalising for emphasis? It makes your posts, especially the longer ones, very difficult to read.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> >
>
>
>

Hi Carol.
 
I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be dismissed. To
his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
 
As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
 
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.

In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.

Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!

"Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).

I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.

Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!

Carol

Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered the Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. If he had purposedly murdered them (and I don't think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard II to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays standards and I
try to remain objective, whilst still being a  lady Ricardian.
 
Hope this helps.  H.  


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero

 

  I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
to have kicked in. 
  
Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
 Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.

  I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.

   In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 

  In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
[Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 

I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.

I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>
>--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>
>> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
>>
>> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>> >
>> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>> >
>> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>> >
>> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > From: EileenB
>> > > To:
>> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: Paul
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
>> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
>> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
>> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
>> > >
>> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
>> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
>> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
>> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
>> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.

Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol.
>  
> I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be dismissed. To
> his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
>  
> As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> >  
> > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
>
> In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
>
> Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
>
> "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
>
> I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
>
> Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary...this is very odd because I have asked myself the same question as recently as today. ..How would I feel if it was found to be that Richard had had his nephews done away with? And I came up with the same thinking as yourself. It would not alter my perception of him.

In my previous post I have said that no-one alive today can say for sure whether CN committed adultery and Edward was indeed a bastard. That we can only say what we think! This of course way of thinking must also apply to the disappearance of the Princes. I personally think that they were not murdered but spirited away somewhere. What become of them after that who knows. But at the end of the day we do not know 100%. Anyway I digress...but getting back to what I was saying...No....Im pretty certain it would not change my perception of him....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered the Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. If he had purposedly murdered them (and I don't think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard II to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays standards and I
> try to remain objective, whilst still being a  lady Ricardian.
>  
> Hope this helps.  H.  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>  
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > 
> >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> >--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> >> >
> >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> >> >
> >> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > From: EileenB
> >> > > To:
> >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,
 
I'm not saying that I believe in it either, I was just trying to paraphrase Jones for Carol.
 
He is saying, I believe, but you'll have to read the book, that Shore/Lambert got this info from pillow talk with Edward and that More had had conversations with her when she was old and destitute and it rings true. 
Mancini is the source of Cicely saying that Edward was illegitmate, but Mancini who did not appear in England until much later, probably got this info from his friend Dr Argentine, who had known the royal family for years. Mancini is repeating it because he is trying to understand why Richard took the throne when he did. 
 
As I also said to Carol, Jones's very good book is about trying to understand Richard's psychology at Bosworth. It isn't a treatise on the legitimacy thing and he doesn't really have an axe to grind in this respect. He is a good Ricardian historian whose speciality is actually battles.
 
Again - the argument is Jones's not mine. But it is a good book and well worth reading. This bit is essentially the preface.  Hope this helps H
 
 


________________________________
From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:23
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Sorry, Hilary, I'm struggling with this. I haven't read Jones' book, and I must - my 'to read' stack is enormous - but is he saying that Jane Shore/Elizabeth Lambert ( Jabeth Shorbert?!) is reporting to More something that was allegedly said in 1464?

I'm just thinking in type here and not expecting you to have the answers:- but surely if Mancini was in England before Edward IV died what was his brief? It couldn't have been his mission to "make sense of the happenings of the Summer of 1483" because none of those momentous events had happened when he first arrived.

I know that there is a possibility that he was here to do something else and was asked to write a retrospective report in the light of subsequent events. In that case, he may never have been writing 'from notes', as it were, but relying on memory, supposition and gossip.

I don't know. Michael Jones knows a hell of a lot more than I do and is more qualified but it doesn't sound right, somehow.

Mind you, I don't agree with him about Edward IV's illegitimacy, either...

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
>  
> He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
>  
> He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
>  
> He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
> The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
>  
> Hope this helps. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > à
> > So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
>
> The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).
>
> I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry to bang on about it. I hadn't read Carol's response or your reply to her when I posted. I do realise that you were paraphrasing and that it wasn't necessarily your point of view that you were putting forward.


I will shut up about it now and wait until I've read the book before I comment further. ;-)



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> I'm not saying that I believe in it either, I was just trying to paraphrase Jones for Carol.
>  
> He is saying, I believe, but you'll have to read the book, that Shore/Lambert got this info from pillow talk with Edward and that More had had conversations with her when she was old and destitute and it rings true. 
> Mancini is the source of Cicely saying that Edward was illegitmate, but Mancini who did not appear in England until much later, probably got this info from his friend Dr Argentine, who had known the royal family for years. Mancini is repeating it because he is trying to understand why Richard took the throne when he did. 
>  
> As I also said to Carol, Jones's very good book is about trying to understand Richard's psychology at Bosworth. It isn't a treatise on the legitimacy thing and he doesn't really have an axe to grind in this respect. He is a good Ricardian historian whose speciality is actually battles.
>  
> Again - the argument is Jones's not mine. But it is a good book and well worth reading. This bit is essentially the preface.  Hope this helps H
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:23
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Sorry, Hilary, I'm struggling with this. I haven't read Jones' book, and I must - my 'to read' stack is enormous - but is he saying that Jane Shore/Elizabeth Lambert ( Jabeth Shorbert?!) is reporting to More something that was allegedly said in 1464?
>
> I'm just thinking in type here and not expecting you to have the answers:- but surely if Mancini was in England before Edward IV died what was his brief? It couldn't have been his mission to "make sense of the happenings of the Summer of 1483" because none of those momentous events had happened when he first arrived.
>
> I know that there is a possibility that he was here to do something else and was asked to write a retrospective report in the light of subsequent events. In that case, he may never have been writing 'from notes', as it were, but relying on memory, supposition and gossip.
>
> I don't know. Michael Jones knows a hell of a lot more than I do and is more qualified but it doesn't sound right, somehow.
>
> Mind you, I don't agree with him about Edward IV's illegitimacy, either...
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> >  
> > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. According to Shore via More Cicely devised to 'disturb this marriage'. Cicely was particularly rankled because Edward had married a widow and he quotes Queen Isabella' s displeasure expressed in later years to Richard that she had been dismissed for a 'mere widow' . He then says that Cicely announced that Edward was not her legitimate son and the effect must have been 'stupendous'.
> >  
> > He invokes Mancini to continue the story. He discusses possible biases of Mancini and the fact that he was writing much later and does not give much detail of dates surrounding the claim that Cicely was prepared to swear before a public enquiry that Edward was illegitimate. However, he bases the veracity of Mancini's statement about Cicely and the legitimacy on his friendship with John Argentine, who as you know was physician to Edward V and had had close access to the York family. He makes the point that Mancini wasn't just there to garner gossip, but to try to make sense of the happenings of the summer of 1483.
> >  
> > He then continues for several pages to discuss the ongoing influence of Cicely. I personally find it a very good and timely analysis. and according to Sean Cunningham he seems to be still pursuing this.
> > The book is written well before Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen so he was not writing with a particular axe to grind. He was trying to understand Richard's psychology from his upbringing which, amongst other  things, led him to make that fatal charge at Bosworth. It's one of the best books on Richard I've read and Jones comes across (when he does appear on telly) as a modest and serious medieval scholar. Just my opinion of course.    
> >  
> > Hope this helps. H. 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 23:32
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >  
> > > So I'll try again. It is Michael Jones who quotes More who relates this from his conversations with Jane Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) and in the notes to the chapter about this Mancini is also mentioned. [snip] What I was saying to Eileen was that if the rumour existed then it was a good way for Warwick to wind up Clarence, who had been the heir for a good eight years and whom Edward had stopped marrying in the past. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thank you. This is the kind of response that I was looking for in the first place except that I don't really need the secondary sources (Kendall, Hughes, etc.), just the primary sources (Mancini and More). It looks to me as if More took a bit of gossip that he found in Mancini and attributed it to Mistress Shore (as Mancini certainly did not; IIRC, Elizabeth Lambert was still in prison when he wrote and he names no sources other than Dr. Argentine).
> >
> > The rumor of Edward's illegitimacy certainly existed at the time Warwick was manipulating Clarence (though I don't think we can say which one of them originated it), but the story of Cecily's "frenzy" seems to be a later development (like the game of telephone that someone mentioned).
> >
> > I haven't read Jones's book and it's been years since I read anything by Elizabeth Jenkins. Does either of them take seriously the idea that Elizabeth Lambert was the source of the "frenzy" story? That seems to me a strange position for a serious historian to take. Maybe it's just the word "fact" in your earlier post that threw me off.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
 
The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.

Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Carol.
>  
> I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
dismissed. To
> his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
>  
> As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > à
> > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
>
> In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
>
> Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
>
> "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
>
> I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
>
> Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/George...the
hero...maybe..


> He is saying, I believe, but you'll have to read the book, that
> Shore/Lambert got this info from pillow talk with Edward

I wouldn't have thought Edward would be daft enough to discuss it - but
pillow-talk with Hastings, yes, maybe. He probably would have known about
it.

Yes and that's the acid test. I think he was a guy ahead of his time, way ahead of his time. Which is probably why he didn't last long. I'm also torn between Buckingham and the spiriting away. I can't see why he wouldn't have sent them to the Low Countries. He'd been there twice himself. I'd like to hope there's still a lot to discover.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 17:03
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


 

Hilary...this is very odd because I have asked myself the same question as recently as today. ..How would I feel if it was found to be that Richard had had his nephews done away with? And I came up with the same thinking as yourself. It would not alter my perception of him.

In my previous post I have said that no-one alive today can say for sure whether CN committed adultery and Edward was indeed a bastard. That we can only say what we think! This of course way of thinking must also apply to the disappearance of the Princes. I personally think that they were not murdered but spirited away somewhere. What become of them after that who knows. But at the end of the day we do not know 100%. Anyway I digress...but getting back to what I was saying...No....Im pretty certain it would not change my perception of him....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered the Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. If he had purposedly murdered them (and I don't think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard II to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays
standards and I
> try to remain objective, whilst still being a  lady Ricardian.
>  
> Hope this helps.  H.  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
> Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>  
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > 
> >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> >> >
> >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> >> >
> >> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > From: EileenB
> >> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary....Gordon Bennett as they say..I have been trying to post this reply to you..Yahoo Duh...That second part of the message was not a comment to you but a general one to the forum...
I have understood what you have been trying to say from the word go. Poor Hilary...you must be exhausted :0):0):0) Eileen



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
>  
> The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
>
> Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol.
> >  
> > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
> dismissed. To
> > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> >  
> > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> >  
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > >  
> > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> >
> > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> >
> > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> >
> > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> >
> > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah yes..possible..and Hastings pillow talked with Shore/Lambert...Hmmm what a tangled web we weave..when we practice to deceive...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Paul/George...the
> hero...maybe..
>
>
> > He is saying, I believe, but you'll have to read the book, that
> > Shore/Lambert got this info from pillow talk with Edward
>
> I wouldn't have thought Edward would be daft enough to discuss it - but
> pillow-talk with Hastings, yes, maybe. He probably would have known about
> it.
>

My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes and that's the acid test. I think he was a guy ahead of his time, way ahead of his time. Which is probably why he didn't last long. I'm also torn between Buckingham and the spiriting away. I can't see why he wouldn't have sent them to the Low Countries. He'd been there twice himself. I'd like to hope there's still a lot to discover.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 17:03
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary...this is very odd because I have asked myself the same question as recently as today. ..How would I feel if it was found to be that Richard had had his nephews done away with? And I came up with the same thinking as yourself. It would not alter my perception of him.
>
> In my previous post I have said that no-one alive today can say for sure whether CN committed adultery and Edward was indeed a bastard. That we can only say what we think! This of course way of thinking must also apply to the disappearance of the Princes. I personally think that they were not murdered but spirited away somewhere. What become of them after that who knows. But at the end of the day we do not know 100%. Anyway I digress...but getting back to what I was saying...No....Im pretty certain it would not change my perception of him....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered the Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. If he had purposedly murdered them (and I don't think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard II to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays
> standards and I
> > try to remain objective, whilst still being a  lady Ricardian.
> >  
> > Hope this helps.  H.  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Arthurian
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
> > Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >  
> >
> >   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> > to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> > to have kicked in. 
> >   
> > Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> >  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
> >
> >   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
> >
> >    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> > Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
> >
> >   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> > [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
> >
> > I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
> >
> > I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
> >  
> > Kind Regards,
> >  
> > Arthur.
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> > >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> > >
> > >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > >> >
> > >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > >> >
> > >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From: EileenB
> > >> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't worry. Twas not aimed at anyone in particular but I could see the scalping knives coming out.
I am still smiling!!


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


 

Hilary....Gordon Bennett as they say..I have been trying to post this reply to you..Yahoo Duh...That second part of the message was not a comment to you but a general one to the forum...
I have understood what you have been trying to say from the word go. Poor Hilary...you must be exhausted :0):0):0) Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
>  
> The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
>
> Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol.
> > à
> > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything aboutàlegitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.ààAnd he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think
cannot be
> dismissed. To
> > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> > à
> > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones.àI'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> > à
> > à
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> > à
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> >
> > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> >
> > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> >
> > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> >
> > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is a 'Good Point' that to Lady Ricardians he was a 'Good Boy' However to the MAJORITY [Rightly or Wrongly] 
He has been perceived as a 'Bad Boy'. Thanks to the Bard.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:40
>Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>> I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of
>> the lady Ricardians, however in some cases,
>to a relative NEWCOMER it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction
>Syndrome' MAY, on occasion,
>to have kicked in.
>
>No, definitely not. All those attracted to Richard believe him to have been
>a Good Boy - sometimes to the point of believing him to have been improbably
>saintly and a bit wet.
>
>> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious
>> Injustice'.
>
>That, definitely. If the Tudors had stuck to saying "He wasn't very good
>with money, we're not sure if his claim to the throne was valid and even if
>it was we deny all Yorkist claims" then the two-year-king would probably
>just have been a footnote in history, like poor little Edward VI. But by
>telling lies about him (and whatever you think of what happened to the two
>boys, much of the Tudor version of Richard is demonstrably lies) they made
>him a victim of injustice, and therefore a cause that people would fight
>for. Plus, he was young and the last few years of his life were a horrible
>mess filled with bereavement and disaster, so people feel parental and
>caring towards him.
>
>Independently, of course, his memory also lived on in the north in the same
>way that people remember e.g. Simon Bolivar or Garibaldi, because he became
>a symbol of the north's separate identity. Even in the 1940s my mother's
>Yorkshire boyfriend spoke of Good King Dick as a proverbially Good Thing,
>evidently as a folk memory rather than a modern revision.
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry if I caused any offence,
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:34
>Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>Speaking for myself, I am quite offended at being called a "lady Ricardian". What the heck is one of those?
>
>And it would only be 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' if he was a 'Bad Boy'. ;-)
>
>And please may I echo Carol's plea that you refrain from capitalising for emphasis? It makes your posts, especially the longer ones, very difficult to read.
>
>--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>>
>>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
>> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
>> to have kicked in. 
>>   
>> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>>
>>
>>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>>
>>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
>> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>>
>>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
>> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>>
>> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>>
>> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for that.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:52
>Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> 
>Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered the Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. If he had purposedly murdered them (and I don't think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard II to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays standards and I
>try to remain objective, whilst still being a  lady Ricardian.
> 
>Hope this helps.  H.  
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
>Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
> 
>
>  I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
>to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
>to have kicked in. 
>  
>Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>  I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>   In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
>Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>  In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
>[Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
>I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
>I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
>>Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>>
>>
>> 
>>Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
>>
>>--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>>>
>>> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
>>>
>>> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>>> >
>>> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
>>> >
>>> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
>>> >
>>> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
>>> >
>>> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > From: EileenB
>>> > > To:
>>> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
>>> > > Subject: Re: Paul
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
>>> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
>>> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
>>> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
>>> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
>>> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
>>> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
>>> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was kidding. You didn't, really.



--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry if I caused any offence,
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:34
> >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > 
> >Speaking for myself, I am quite offended at being called a "lady Ricardian". What the heck is one of those?
> >
> >And it would only be 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' if he was a 'Bad Boy'. ;-)
> >
> >And please may I echo Carol's plea that you refrain from capitalising for emphasis? It makes your posts, especially the longer ones, very difficult to read.
> >
> >--- In , Arthurian wrote:
> >>
> >>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> >> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> >> to have kicked in. 
> >>   
> >> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> >>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
> >>
> >>
> >>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
> >>
> >>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> >> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
> >>
> >>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> >> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
> >>
> >> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
> >>
> >> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
> >>  
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>  
> >> Arthur.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I agree with you Hilary Michael Jones' book is excellent and it deals with lots of things. I am particularly interested in his theory of a different site for the battle. He did a lot of research regarding Tydder being at Merevale Abbey before the Battle which is very interesting.

I believe that he helped to instigate the archaeological dig at the battle field. In fairness in my opinion Foard tried to say that he had found the battle site and that Peter Foss and Michael Jones were both wrong and I vaguely remember Peter Foss refuting this and saying that he had told Foard where to start looking. When the news of the battlefield finds came out I looked at maps of the area and his finds were not far from where Michael Jones and Peter Foss said they took place. Having visited the Battlefield area twice, once with someone from Dadlington putting forward their site for the battle and once on a tour of Merevale and his site of the battle with Michael Jones, I think that there is much still to be discovered. If I remember correctly at the time Michael said that there needed to be a thorough archaeological dig to prove it one way or the other. Hopefully this will now come about.

Like Eileen I think that Richard probably managed to get the boys out of the country, but I can't say for certain that he did because there is no evidence. Michael Jones thinks that Richard had them done away with but I would have to disagree with him on that because there is no evidence for that either. Hopefully Philippa's efforts could lead to some answers to these questions.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
>  
> The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
>
> Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol.
> >  
> > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
> dismissed. To
> > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> >  
> > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> >  
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > >  
> > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> >
> > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> >
> > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> >
> > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> >
> > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


> Ah yes..possible..and Hastings pillow talked with Shore/Lambert...Hmmm
> what a tangled web we weave..when we practice to deceive...Eileen

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive
But when we've practised for a bit
We find we get quite good at it

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible
> to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got
> the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen

They decided that being king was a good way of screwing up your life,
especially if you were going to be plagued by accusations that your father
was a bigamist, so they sloped off and did something less dangerous. Imo.

Eileen
Postscript Books online have it for £5.99, which is where I got mine from. Amazon are charging £11.69.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary....Gordon Bennett as they say..I have been trying to post this reply to you..Yahoo Duh...That second part of the message was not a comment to you but a general one to the forum...
> I have understood what you have been trying to say from the word go. Poor Hilary...you must be exhausted :0):0):0) Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
> >  
> > The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
> >
> > Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carol.
> > >  
> > > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
> > dismissed. To
> > > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> > >  
> > > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > > >  
> > > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> > >
> > > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> > >
> > > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> > >
> > > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sounds very interesting....Battle sites encompass such huge areas dont they...all the 1000s and 1000s of men and horses...It must be difficult to be precise.

Speaking of books...does anyone have any comment to make on Anne Crawford's book Yorkists: The History of a Dynasty. I came across this after googling for information about CN's alleged tantrum...and from the peep I took it looks like a good read. However I am really loath to waste money on books that are not up to muster...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with you Hilary Michael Jones' book is excellent and it deals with lots of things. I am particularly interested in his theory of a different site for the battle. He did a lot of research regarding Tydder being at Merevale Abbey before the Battle which is very interesting.
>
> I believe that he helped to instigate the archaeological dig at the battle field. In fairness in my opinion Foard tried to say that he had found the battle site and that Peter Foss and Michael Jones were both wrong and I vaguely remember Peter Foss refuting this and saying that he had told Foard where to start looking. When the news of the battlefield finds came out I looked at maps of the area and his finds were not far from where Michael Jones and Peter Foss said they took place. Having visited the Battlefield area twice, once with someone from Dadlington putting forward their site for the battle and once on a tour of Merevale and his site of the battle with Michael Jones, I think that there is much still to be discovered. If I remember correctly at the time Michael said that there needed to be a thorough archaeological dig to prove it one way or the other. Hopefully this will now come about.
>
> Like Eileen I think that Richard probably managed to get the boys out of the country, but I can't say for certain that he did because there is no evidence. Michael Jones thinks that Richard had them done away with but I would have to disagree with him on that because there is no evidence for that either. Hopefully Philippa's efforts could lead to some answers to these questions.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
> >  
> > The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
> >
> > Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carol.
> > >  
> > > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
> > dismissed. To
> > > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> > >  
> > > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > > >  
> > > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> > >
> > > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> > >
> > > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> > >
> > > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Arthur wrote:
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'. Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.

>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus. [snip]

Carol responds:

Don't worry, Arthur. At least some of us won't take offense if a "gentleman Lancastrian" makes, er, rather stereotypical assumptions about us!

I think you're probably mistaken about the "bad boy" syndrome, but certainly the desire for justice is a strong motivating factor among many Ricardians, male as well as female.

As for me, I first encountered Richard III not in any romantic novel but in Shakespeare's play, "Richard III." And far from being attracted by the "bad boy" image, I thought that it must certainly be a caricature: no one could be that deformed and fight in all those battles (some of which he never actually fought in, being a child at the time), and no one could have committed so many murders on his way to the throne and gone undetected. I knew that Shakespeare had distorted the chronology (presenting Edmund of Rutland as a twelve-year-old boy while Richard is an adult fighting in the same battle when in fact he was eight years old, to give just one example), and I wondered what else he had distorted. Imagine my surprise on discovering that the answer was "almost everything!" with even traditionalist historians admitting that the "deformity" consisted of a raised shoulder (exaggerated because deformity was associated with evil) and conceded that he had not committed most of the "crimes" attributed to him. I was even more astounded to discover that he had a legal title to the throne and was the author of some enlightened legislation.

I agree with you that the main question still to be resolved is the identity of those bones in the urn, but to assume either that they are Richard's nephews or that, if they are, he is responsible, is to violate the principle that he helped to establish, "innocent until proven guilty."

Here's an essay that you may find interesting:

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html

I also highly recommend Audrey Williamson's "Mystery of the Princes" (not to be confused with Alison Weir's "Princes in the Tower," which treats Sir Thomas More as a reliable source) and Annette Carson's "The Maligned King."

It seems to me that perhaps "gentleman Lancastrians" are as likely as "lady Ricardians" to cling to cherished views. At any rate, it is certainly difficult to be objective about Richard III, as is immediately evidenced by some of the books about him on either side of the controversy, but we can all try to do so and to learn as much about him as we can, distinguishing reliable sources from propaganda and understanding the biases and inadequacies of any source we read.

Not even the hostile Croyland Chronicle accuses Richard of killing his nephews. It reports only that a rumor had been spread (presumably by the Tudor faction) that they had been done away with, "none knew how." No mention of Richard's name or anyone else's in connection with this rumor, which coincides with Buckingham's rebellion and served to change an attempt to rescue the boys from the Tower to support for a pseudo-Lancastrian candidate who secured their support only by promising to marry Elizabeth of York.

Mancini also reports that he had heard rumors that Edward IV's older son, Edward (no mention of the younger boy, Richard), had been "done away with" but could not confirm them--and since he left England before Richard's coronation, any rumors that he heard then were certainly false. The rumors could also have been heard when he came into contact with John Morton, Dr. Argentine, and other Tudor supporters and/or disaffected Yorkists after his return to the Continent.

We cannot believe rumors without investigating them, and we cannot take the unscientific analysis of the bones in the urn nearly eighty years ago as proof that the seriously flawed story in More (which he admits to be only one of a variety of stories he has heard, including that they escaped) is true.

Some of us, at least, are committed to intellectual analysis. I hope that you share that same commitment and are willing to examine "sources" such as More and Shakespeare for their flaws and to look at Richard's own time for whatever we can glean about the real Richard.

Carol, who still finds ALL CAPITAL LETTERS annoying and distracting and again suggests using *asterisks* for emphasis (please)

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> It is a 'Good Point' that to Lady Ricardians he was a 'Good Boy' However
> to the MAJORITY [Rightly or Wrongly]
He has been perceived as a 'Bad Boy'. Thanks to the Bard.

Enough with the capslock already! Do emphasis *like this*.

But yes, there are some people - especially actors who've played him - who
find Shakespeare's Bad Boy Richard attractive, just as there are people who
find the Borgias or Johnny Depp's portrayal of Sweeney Todd attractive, in a
very dark way. But Ricardians find Richard appealing because they're sure
he wasn't a Bad Boy, at least by the standards of the day.

[There's a nasty little bit of business in the transcript of a trial
somewhere where Richard was present while somebody was being tortured - but
even there, he was described as urging the victim to give in and put an end
to it, which suggests that he found the situation desperately
uncomfortable.]

Nope...not me...I dont seem to be able to get away with anything....I always but always get caught out! Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
>
>
> > Ah yes..possible..and Hastings pillow talked with Shore/Lambert...Hmmm
> > what a tangled web we weave..when we practice to deceive...Eileen
>
> Oh what a tangled web we weave
> When first we practise to deceive
> But when we've practised for a bit
> We find we get quite good at it
>

And who could blame them?...Poor little blighters....:0/ Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible
> > to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got
> > the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen
>
> They decided that being king was a good way of screwing up your life,
> especially if you were going to be plagued by accusations that your father
> was a bigamist, so they sloped off and did something less dangerous. Imo.
>

Thank you Elaine...Im off now to do the deal....Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> Postscript Books online have it for £5.99, which is where I got mine from. Amazon are charging £11.69.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary....Gordon Bennett as they say..I have been trying to post this reply to you..Yahoo Duh...That second part of the message was not a comment to you but a general one to the forum...
> > I have understood what you have been trying to say from the word go. Poor Hilary...you must be exhausted :0):0):0) Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.
> > >  
> > > The book is good though in analysing Richard's mindset at Bosworth and makes some interesting points about the crown wearing. It's very readable and I think a must like JAH's last days.  H.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:53
> > > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hilary I will try and get hold of the book...Hopefully a 2nd hand one.
> > >
> > > Just one little point on this topic...re if the stories circulating about Edward being illigitimate and what Cecily's input was on this. As I said I'm keeping an open mind..while I'm inclined to think that there is nothing true in this story...how can it be discarded?..How on earth can anyone say with certainty whether a 15thc woman committed adultery or not. They were as human as we are today and subject to passions, mistakes etc., Of course it was not with an archer but noone alive today can say for sure. Only what they think...We do not know the state of the York's marriage at the moment in time..or how they though and we have in truth no way of ever finding out. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carol.
> > > >  
> > > > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected. He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk. He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book. His subject was how Richard's frame of mind at Bosworth was influenced by his family. He devotes another good chapter to Richard Duke of York, who made a similar rash charge down a hillside at Wakefield, and wonders whether Richard was seeking to emulate him.  And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be
> > > dismissed. To
> > > > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
> > > >  
> > > > As I said in another post, these arguments are between you and other scholars, such as Jones. I'm not being hostile; I wouldn't dream of taking them on, any more than I would take on Mary Beard on Roman culture. Academics will always having varying opinions, that's the fun of history! With best wishes and smiles honest H. (and I would read his book, it's very readable and he is a good Ricardian)
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:11
> > > > Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Right Carol I'll have a go at summarising what Jones says.
> > > > >  
> > > > > He devotes a lot of space to it, at least 6 pages starting at page 62. I cannot find mention of the word frenzy. He discusses More's hostility to Richard but says that the Jane Shore bit is a digression in style from his main tract on Richard. It 'comes alive', which to Jones says that he must have known her personally and the story of Cicely's displeasure came from her lips. [snip the rest]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much, Hilary. I don't know what to say except that Jones is simply mistaken. More speaks of "those who have seen" Mistress Shore, indicating that he has not seen her himself, and he follows his discussion of her with an imagined scene between Edward and Cecily in which she does indeed express displeasure at his intending to marry a widow but says nothing whatever about his illegitimacy. What she does say is that he has impregnated Elizabeth Lucy and therefore should marry her (not something that the Duchess of York would really say and chronologically wrong if I'm not mistaken). This imaginary dialogue (which "comes alive" because More has a vivid imagination, not because it has any basis in fact) and is, as I said in another post, a set-up to "prove" that Edward was not precontracted to Elizabeth Lucy (which no one ever said he was) and that Edward's children were therefore legitimate (and Richard was a liar). He also has Richard (via the
> > > > preacher Shaa) accusing his mother of infidelity but not Cecily calling Edward illegitimate.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert) could not possibly have overheard this conversation (even if it were real and she could somehow remember every word decades later). Edward did not even meet her until the 1480s, and she certainly would not have been staying at his mother's house.
> > > >
> > > > Jones is, if I understand correctly, trying to prove that Edward really was illegitimate, but he needs to look elsewhere than More for his evidence!
> > > >
> > > > "Frenzy" is Mancini's word (in C. A. J. Armstrong's translation). Here's the quotation from Mancini as Kendall gives it: "[The Duchess of York] fell into such a frenzy [at hearing the news of Edward's marriage], that she offered to submit to a public inquiry and asserted that Edward was not the offspring if the Duke of York, but was conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship" (Kendall, p. 263).
> > > >
> > > > I'm surprised that Jones (apparently) doesn't include this quotation as it constitutes his only "evidence" from a fifteenth-century source. But Mancini, who apparently spoke little or no English, is basing his paraphrase on somebody else's Latin paraphrase of a conversation that, if it really occurred, would have happened nineteen years earlier (and surely not in the presence of any of the priests who were his sources). In other words, Mancini is only reporting gossip current in 1483 and treating it as fact. And, of course, we're reading the English turned to Latin translated back into modern English, which is true for all our Latin sources, leading to the possibility of mistranslation along the way.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, thanks very much for summarizing Jones's argument. I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree. And poor Mistress Shore (Elizabeth Lambert), identified as the source of an imaginary conversation (a typical humanist tactic) that doesn't even really involve Edward's supposed illegitimacy!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>


I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.

It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))

In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.

Sir Edward Brampton (Duarte Brandao).
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero



My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes and that's the acid test. I think he was a guy ahead of his time, way ahead of his time. Which is probably why he didn't last long. I'm also torn between Buckingham and the spiriting away. I can't see why he wouldn't have sent them to the Low Countries. He'd been there twice himself. I'd like to hope there's still a lot to discover.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 17:03
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> Â
>
> Hilary...this is very odd because I have asked myself the same question as recently as today. ..How would I feel if it was found to be that Richard had had his nephews done away with? And I came up with the same thinking as yourself. It would not alter my perception of him.
>
> In my previous post I have said that no-one alive today can say for sure whether CN committed adultery and Edward was indeed a bastard. That we can only say what we think! This of course way of thinking must also apply to the disappearance of the Princes. I personally think that they were not murdered but spirited away somewhere. What become of them after that who knows. But at the end of the day we do not know 100%. Anyway I digress...but getting back to what I was saying...No....Im pretty certain it would not change my perception of him....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered theÃ, Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. IfÃ, he had purposedly murdered them (and IÃ, don'tÃ, think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard IIÃ, to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays
> standards and I
> > try to remain objective, whilst still being aÃ, lady Ricardian.
> > Ã,Â
> > Hope this helps.Ã, H.Ã, Ã,Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Arthurian
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
> > Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> > Ã,Â
> >
> > Ã, I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases,Ã,Â
> > to a relative NEWCOMER Ã, it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion,Ã,Â
> > to have kicked in.Ã,Â
> > Ã, Ã,Â
> > Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> > Ã, Many veryÃ, scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
> >
> > Ã, I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
> >
> > Ã, Ã, In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against,Ã,Â
> > Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT, Ã, BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath,Ã, WitchcraftÃ, or 'Outward Sign of Evil'.Ã, [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch.Ã,Â
> >
> > Ã, In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with thoseÃ,Â
> > [Usually, but not exclusively, of theÃ, opposite sex] Held inÃ, their custody,Ã, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.'Ã,Â
> >
> > I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
> >
> > I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise.Ã,Â
> > Ã,Â
> > Kind Regards,
> > Ã,Â
> > Arthur.
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> > >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > >Ã,Â
> > >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> > >
> > >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > >> >
> > >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > >> >
> > >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From: EileenB
> > >> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))

I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.

It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?

Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm




>
> I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
>
> It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
>
> In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
>

Thank you Stephen...he is the very one....I was not being lazy..I was in the middle of cooking and could not get to my books...Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Sir Edward Brampton (Duarte Brandao).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
>
> My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes and that's the acid test. I think he was a guy ahead of his time, way ahead of his time. Which is probably why he didn't last long. I'm also torn between Buckingham and the spiriting away. I can't see why he wouldn't have sent them to the Low Countries. He'd been there twice himself. I'd like to hope there's still a lot to discover.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 17:03
> > Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Hilary...this is very odd because I have asked myself the same question as recently as today. ..How would I feel if it was found to be that Richard had had his nephews done away with? And I came up with the same thinking as yourself. It would not alter my perception of him.
> >
> > In my previous post I have said that no-one alive today can say for sure whether CN committed adultery and Edward was indeed a bastard. That we can only say what we think! This of course way of thinking must also apply to the disappearance of the Princes. I personally think that they were not murdered but spirited away somewhere. What become of them after that who knows. But at the end of the day we do not know 100%. Anyway I digress...but getting back to what I was saying...No....Im pretty certain it would not change my perception of him....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Arthur, don't apologise. I read everything, you have to or you can't be objective. The big question is if some irrefutable truth appeared that Richard murdered theÃ, Princes would I still support him? And the answer would be yes, because I think he was a hard-working principled person who took on an enormous task and tried to do his best, despite all. IfÃ, he had purposedly murdered them (and IÃ, don'tÃ, think he did, but Buckingham may have) then his crime would be no worse than lots of other English monarchs who sent people to the fire (Henry V, Henry VIII, Mary) or caused mass murder through insurrection because of grievances (the Civil War). Add to that that Henry IV probably starved Richard IIÃ, to death, John murdered Arthur, and Edward III silently condoned the death of his father and it's difficult to find a good one in our terms. They were different times and called for different measures. It's very difficult to judge them by todays
> > standards and I
> > > try to remain objective, whilst still being aÃ, lady Ricardian.
> > > Ã,Â
> > > Hope this helps.Ã, H.Ã, Ã,Â
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Arthurian
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:14
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > > Ã, I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases,Ã,Â
> > > to a relative NEWCOMER Ã, it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion,Ã,Â
> > > to have kicked in.Ã,Â
> > > Ã, Ã,Â
> > > Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> > > Ã, Many veryÃ, scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
> > >
> > > Ã, I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
> > >
> > > Ã, Ã, In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against,Ã,Â
> > > Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT, Ã, BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath,Ã, WitchcraftÃ, or 'Outward Sign of Evil'.Ã, [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch.Ã,Â
> > >
> > > Ã, In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with thoseÃ,Â
> > > [Usually, but not exclusively, of theÃ, opposite sex] Held inÃ, their custody,Ã, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.'Ã,Â
> > >
> > > I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
> > >
> > > I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise.Ã,Â
> > > Ã,Â
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Ã,Â
> > > Arthur.
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > >To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> > > >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ã,Â
> > > >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> > > >
> > > >--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > From: EileenB
> > > >> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > > >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > > >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > > >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > > >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > > >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > > >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > > >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Carol.
>  
> I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected.

Carol responds:

But the problem is that Cecily could not and would not have said the words that More attributes to her. The whole conversation is imaginary (a convention in humanist writing). I can copy and paste the conversation if you like so you can see just how unlikely it is (and that she says nothing about Edward's illegitimacy).

Hilary:
He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk.

Carol responds:

Unprovable speculation then, and, besides, More really doesn't attribute the paraphrased conversation to Lambert/Shore. He says quite clearly that he hasn't seen her and talks about other men's reports about how she looks now (1514) and how she supposedly looked when she was Edward's mistress.

Hilary:

He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book.

Carol:
I'm pretty sure that I've encountered an article by him that does try to prove Edward's illegitimacy, but it may be someone else who uses him as a source. I'll try to find it if I have time (and if the article is really by him, I'll provide a link to it).


Hilary wrote:
> [snip] And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be dismissed. To
> his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.

Carol:
Oh, there's no question that Dr. Argentine was one of Mancini's sources, but he wouldn't have known about a conversation that ostensibly took place at the time of Edward's marriage. As a source of current court gossip, he was probably invaluable. (The question, not really relevant here) is whether Mancini wrote the more or less favorable first part of his report while he was in England and the unfavorable part later after he'd met Argentine in France, or whether he talked with Argentine at the time. He doesn't cite any other source and tells his patron, Cato, that he hasn't had time to check names, dates, and other details.)

It's not the Argentine connection that worries me (although I certainly don't see him as a reliable informant on this particular matter). It's the supposed Shore/Lambert connection.

I'll be happy to read Jones's book to see what he says on Bosworth if I ever have time and funds, but I think he's completely off base here.

Should I post the More passage, or should we just drop the topic now that I understand where Jones is trying to go with it?

Again, I don't doubt for a moment that George and/or Warwick was spreading rumors of Edward's illegitimacy before Barnet, and we have proof in the attainder against George that he was at it again in 1478. (What Cecily thought is not recorded.) The rumors must have started proliferating again in 1484, possibly through confusion with the real charges relating to the precontract. Whether Mancini heard them through Dr. Argentine or one of his many unidentified sources is impossible to say. The only rumor that he credits directly to Argentine is the one about ex-Edward V expecting to die and preparing his soul for eternity--which could mean that Edward was ill or that he didn't trust his uncle but could just be anti-Richard propaganda once Argentine had deserted the lost cause of Edward V and joined the Tudor faction.

well, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject unless you want me to quote that long, paraphrased (imaginary) dialogue between Edward and his mother, including the context so you can see that he doesn't attribute it to Mistress Shore and that it was actually a set-up for the red herring argument about Elizabeth Lucy (in place of Eleanor Butler) to "prove" that there was no previous marriage.

I wanted to make a humorous comment to Eileen about reading More really being worse than sticking pins in your eyes, but I can't think of one or remember exactly what she said, only that I laughed and agreed.

Carol

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:07 PM
Subject: Richard in Fiction?


> It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which
> interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so
> many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd
> help us) childhood sweethearts,

They might well have been friends, since they certainly knew each other as
children, but the age-gap between them was so large that to be actual
sweethearts when Richard was less than about 18 would be creepy.

> Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm

The Dragon Waiting by John Ford - if you don't mind the fact that the hero
is a vampire trying unsuccessfully to comit suicide, and loud, breezy,
soldierly Richard is only a secondary character. The Rhoda Edwards books
are reasonably unsoupy: iirc Fortune's Wheel opens with 12-ish Richard in a
boat on the Thames, moodily sticking the points of his long shoes under the
bench in front and waggling them about until the stuffing goes limp, in a
very realistically young-boyish way.

There's another good one I can't for the life of me remember the title of -
I'll have to try and find it. All I remember is that it devoted a lot of
time to Richard and George as exiles and somebody commented on Richard's
reddish hair and on him being very combative to go with his red hair, and it
followed Richard and Henry in parallel, moving towards each other like the
iceberg and the Titanic.

I never suspected for one moment that More's version was a genuine version..More made up a lot of conversations etc., as he went along. That we know. .But on the other hand that does not necessarily mean that the whole thing was a lie. Of course it is as you say unprovable speculation but then again so is a lot of the stuff on here....And I doubt very much if we will ever get to the bottom of some things..especially this one. Im inclined to think that only a very few people would have known the absolute truth on this one....how frustrating...and how intriguing...

Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol.
> >  
> > I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But the problem is that Cecily could not and would not have said the words that More attributes to her. The whole conversation is imaginary (a convention in humanist writing). I can copy and paste the conversation if you like so you can see just how unlikely it is (and that she says nothing about Edward's illegitimacy).
>
> Hilary:
> He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Unprovable speculation then, and, besides, More really doesn't attribute the paraphrased conversation to Lambert/Shore. He says quite clearly that he hasn't seen her and talks about other men's reports about how she looks now (1514) and how she supposedly looked when she was Edward's mistress.
>
> Hilary:
>
> He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book.
>
> Carol:
> I'm pretty sure that I've encountered an article by him that does try to prove Edward's illegitimacy, but it may be someone else who uses him as a source. I'll try to find it if I have time (and if the article is really by him, I'll provide a link to it).
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
> > [snip] And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be dismissed. To
> > his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.
>
> Carol:
> Oh, there's no question that Dr. Argentine was one of Mancini's sources, but he wouldn't have known about a conversation that ostensibly took place at the time of Edward's marriage. As a source of current court gossip, he was probably invaluable. (The question, not really relevant here) is whether Mancini wrote the more or less favorable first part of his report while he was in England and the unfavorable part later after he'd met Argentine in France, or whether he talked with Argentine at the time. He doesn't cite any other source and tells his patron, Cato, that he hasn't had time to check names, dates, and other details.)
>
> It's not the Argentine connection that worries me (although I certainly don't see him as a reliable informant on this particular matter). It's the supposed Shore/Lambert connection.
>
> I'll be happy to read Jones's book to see what he says on Bosworth if I ever have time and funds, but I think he's completely off base here.
>
> Should I post the More passage, or should we just drop the topic now that I understand where Jones is trying to go with it?
>
> Again, I don't doubt for a moment that George and/or Warwick was spreading rumors of Edward's illegitimacy before Barnet, and we have proof in the attainder against George that he was at it again in 1478. (What Cecily thought is not recorded.) The rumors must have started proliferating again in 1484, possibly through confusion with the real charges relating to the precontract. Whether Mancini heard them through Dr. Argentine or one of his many unidentified sources is impossible to say. The only rumor that he credits directly to Argentine is the one about ex-Edward V expecting to die and preparing his soul for eternity--which could mean that Edward was ill or that he didn't trust his uncle but could just be anti-Richard propaganda once Argentine had deserted the lost cause of Edward V and joined the Tudor faction.
>
> well, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject unless you want me to quote that long, paraphrased (imaginary) dialogue between Edward and his mother, including the context so you can see that he doesn't attribute it to Mistress Shore and that it was actually a set-up for the red herring argument about Elizabeth Lucy (in place of Eleanor Butler) to "prove" that there was no previous marriage.
>
> I wanted to make a humorous comment to Eileen about reading More really being worse than sticking pins in your eyes, but I can't think of one or remember exactly what she said, only that I laughed and agreed.
>
> Carol
>

Like most leaders, especially in his case, the last son, no a King, he is a magical, mysterious, perplexing mixture of emotions, strengths and weaknesses. And his history has been stretched and changed by so many, we will never know. But we have his remains, and we have a lot to learn!

On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...<mailto:angelalice5657@...>> wrote:



Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))

I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.

It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?

Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm

>
> I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
>
> It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
>
> In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

> I'm not saying that I believe in it either, I was just trying to paraphrase Jones for Carol.
>  
> He is saying, I believe, but you'll have to read the book, that Shore/Lambert got this info from pillow talk with Edward and that More had had conversations with her when she was old and destitute and it rings true. [Snip the part on Mancini and Dr. Argentine, which I've already answered.]

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. I guess I'm arguing with Jones, who isn't here to read my posts, but I think it's important for members here to see how flawed his argument is.

First, More says nothing about Mistress Shore as the source of his "information." He's been talking about the speeches given when Richard was about to be proclaimed king in relation to the (supposed) charge of Edward IV's bastardy and the (real) charge that his children were bastards. Here's how he leads into his imaginary dialogue:

"To lay bastardy in kynge Edward, sowned openly to the rebuke of the protectours owne mother, which was mother to them both: for in that point could be none other colour, but to pretend that his own mother was one aduouteresse which not withstanding to farther this purpose he letted not: but Natheles he would the point should be lesse & more fauorably handled, not euen fully plain & directly, but that the matter should be touched a slope craftely, as though men spared in that point to speke al the trouth for fere of his displeasure. But the other point concerning the bastardy that they deuised to sumise in King Edwards children, that wold he should be openly declared & inforsed to the vttermost. The coloure & pretext wherof cannot be wel p[er]ceiued, but if we first repete you some thinges longe before done about king Edwardes mariage." In other words, Richard refused to openly charge his mother with adultery but let rumors to that effect slip out. But he allowed the point concerning the bastardy of Edward's children to be spoken openly.

This comment on Richard leads into his assertion that in order for the second assertion (the bastardy of Edward's children) to be perceived as a falsehood, "we" (More? More and Morton?) must first repeat some things that had been done long before about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Not a word about a source, much less about Mistress Shore. (I won't repeat the conversation itself here, but let me know if you want it.)

As for More's speaking directly with Mistress Shore (EL), here's what he actually says: "Proper she was & faire: nothing in her body that you would haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher. Thus say thei that knew her in her youthe. Albeit some that now se her (for yet she liueth) deme her neuer to haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me somwhat like, as though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before departed, by her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old lene, withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone. An yet being euen such: whoso wel aduise her visage, might gesse & deuise which partes how filled, wold make it a faire face."

In other words, those who knew her in her youth say that she was pretty and that the only thing you might have wanted to change was to make her a little taller. However, some that now see her think that she never had a pretty face, which seems to More like judging past beauty by the appearance of her scalp taken out of a charnel house. He says (based apparently on hearsay since he himself has not seen her) that she's now old, lean, withered, and dried up. but he surmises that if a man looked at her closely, he would see her former beauty. There is no report even of an imagined conversation with her (as I mistakenly remembered).

More goes from his description of Mistress Shore and her relationship with the king (as he imagines it based on what he'd heard) along with another pleas for sympathy (and an improbable claim that she has been reduced to begging in her old age) to his account of the beheading of Rivers et al. and then into the speeches, and then into the supposed conversation between Edward and Cecily.

How Jones can arrive at the conclusion that Shore/Lambert was More's source for that conversation, I can't imagine. It's been speculated that he and Mancini had a common source (Morton? Argentine?) but we can at least be sure that Shore/Lambert was not Mancini's source!

Okay, really done with the topic unless anyone also wants to read the imaginary conversation. If so, I'll let you do your own paraphrasing as all this is very time consuming.

Carol

I think that you will find that while "The Sunne in Splendour" is indeed fiction it is fiction that was meticulously researched when it was written and yes it has conversations in it which definitely didn't take place. However, compared with the writings of some so called academics it is far more historically accurate and based on the evidence that we do have, than their willingness to believe that Shakespeare was a historian and that More's fairytale was fact.

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))
>
> I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.
>
> It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?
>
> Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
> >
> > It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
> >
> > In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
> >
>

Carol,
 
With all due respect talk to Michael Jones not me! You asked me to do you a favour and paraphrase the pages of his book.
 
But I would put it to the top of your pile. It is very good, More, Mancini or not. That's not what it's really about - it's about trying to understand Richard the man.  
 
And to me that matters.
Best Wishes Hilary


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 19:20
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Carol.
>  
> I've just said to Eileen that Jones is primarily a battle historian, the one who helped find the real Bosworth. He's just had a book published on Stalingrad. I don't actually think he was trying to prove anything, other than to get inside Richard's head. And I really do think he does a good job of assessing Cicely's contribution which has for so long been neglected.

Carol responds:

But the problem is that Cecily could not and would not have said the words that More attributes to her. The whole conversation is imaginary (a convention in humanist writing). I can copy and paste the conversation if you like so you can see just how unlikely it is (and that she says nothing about Edward's illegitimacy).

Hilary:
He doesn't say Lambert/Shore overheard the conversation; he says Edward probably repeated it to her as pillow talk.

Carol responds:

Unprovable speculation then, and, besides, More really doesn't attribute the paraphrased conversation to Lambert/Shore. He says quite clearly that he hasn't seen her and talks about other men's reports about how she looks now (1514) and how she supposedly looked when she was Edward's mistress.

Hilary:

He wasn't trying to prove anything about legitimacy or otherwise, that was not the subject of his book.

Carol:
I'm pretty sure that I've encountered an article by him that does try to prove Edward's illegitimacy, but it may be someone else who uses him as a source. I'll try to find it if I have time (and if the article is really by him, I'll provide a link to it).

Hilary wrote:
> [snip] And he clarifies the Mancini thing by also quoting the Argentine connection, which I think cannot be dismissed. To
> his credit he doesn't include the Mancini quote because he says himself that Mancini is weak on how and when it happened and can only assume he got it from Argentine.

Carol:
Oh, there's no question that Dr. Argentine was one of Mancini's sources, but he wouldn't have known about a conversation that ostensibly took place at the time of Edward's marriage. As a source of current court gossip, he was probably invaluable. (The question, not really relevant here) is whether Mancini wrote the more or less favorable first part of his report while he was in England and the unfavorable part later after he'd met Argentine in France, or whether he talked with Argentine at the time. He doesn't cite any other source and tells his patron, Cato, that he hasn't had time to check names, dates, and other details.)

It's not the Argentine connection that worries me (although I certainly don't see him as a reliable informant on this particular matter). It's the supposed Shore/Lambert connection.

I'll be happy to read Jones's book to see what he says on Bosworth if I ever have time and funds, but I think he's completely off base here.

Should I post the More passage, or should we just drop the topic now that I understand where Jones is trying to go with it?

Again, I don't doubt for a moment that George and/or Warwick was spreading rumors of Edward's illegitimacy before Barnet, and we have proof in the attainder against George that he was at it again in 1478. (What Cecily thought is not recorded.) The rumors must have started proliferating again in 1484, possibly through confusion with the real charges relating to the precontract. Whether Mancini heard them through Dr. Argentine or one of his many unidentified sources is impossible to say. The only rumor that he credits directly to Argentine is the one about ex-Edward V expecting to die and preparing his soul for eternity--which could mean that Edward was ill or that he didn't trust his uncle but could just be anti-Richard propaganda once Argentine had deserted the lost cause of Edward V and joined the Tudor faction.

well, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject unless you want me to quote that long, paraphrased (imaginary) dialogue between Edward and his mother, including the context so you can see that he doesn't attribute it to Mistress Shore and that it was actually a set-up for the red herring argument about Elizabeth Lucy (in place of Eleanor Butler) to "prove" that there was no previous marriage.

I wanted to make a humorous comment to Eileen about reading More really being worse than sticking pins in your eyes, but I can't think of one or remember exactly what she said, only that I laughed and agreed.

Carol

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:

They might well have been friends, since they certainly knew each other as
children, but the age-gap between them was so large that to be actual
sweethearts when Richard was less than about 18 would be creepy.
 
Liz replied:
 
Large? It was four years - I don;t find that creepy at all!  The average age difference between husband and wife these days is about three years. 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you. Folks, please stop attacking me, I was only asked to paraphrase Jones! Where I find it odd is that More is talking about Edward's legitimacy, which would actually reflect on Henry VIII's grandmother, even though H7 took the throne by right of conquest. What was the point? If anything it legitimised Richard and Clarence's claim.

Carol responds:

More is attacking Richard (those he does concede that Richard never openly challenges his mother's chastity). I'm hoping that the context I provided in the other post will clear this up, but it looks as if I also need to quote the (imaginary) conversation itself in which, as I said, Cecily does not call Edward a bastard but merely tells him that he ought to be marrying the woman he has impregnated, Elizabeth Lucy. If such a conversation really occurred, she would really be saying that he can't marry EW because he's already married to Eleanor Butler, but even if More knew Eleanor's name, he could hardly have mentioned her name because he was trying (through shoddy tactics) to *disprove* the precontract story.

One unavoidable problem is that I'm in a completely different time zone than the British posters, so I can't respond immediately to your posts. I think I'm eight hours behind you!

Carol

"It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests
me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III
novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood
sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the
entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only
to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?" (angelalice75)

First post - I have a hard time keeping up with this forum.

I agree that it's the contradictions that are most interesting! Richard seems to end up a caricature - either villain or hero. Who was the real human being, neither monster nor saint?

As for fiction,two books seem to give a more balanced characterisation: "Seventh Son" by Reay Tannehill, and "Under the Hog" by Patrick Carleton, if you can find a copy of it. (In which Richard does murder his nephews, but reluctantly.)



--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))
>
> I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.
>
> It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?
>
> Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
> >
> > It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
> >
> > In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
> >
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> My personal theory..I think that Portugese Jewish chap took them possible to Burgundy...and I think that Tyrell was involved...that is why he got the chop...What became of them after that...?? Pass...Eileen

Carol responds:

The Portuguese converted Jew was Sir Edward Brampton, who took his godfather Edward IV's name when he was baptized and was later knighted by Richard, the first-ever converted Jew to be knighted by a Christian king. (Yes to whoever said that Richard was ahead of his time!) Later, Brampton went by Duarte Brandão (Brandao with an umlaut over the a in case Yahoo mangles it), but that's just a Portuguese translation of Edward Brampton. Whether it was his name before he came to England or not, I don't know.

What became of whom after Tyrrell was executed? Perkin Warbeck had been executed three years before. I don't know what happened to Brampton. Maybe someone else does.

Oh, and I agree with your theory that Brampton took the boys to Burgundy and that Tyrell was somehow involved. If the Gipping story is true, he may have taken them out of the Tower in the first place. How far is Gipping from Guisnes where Tyrell (IIRC) was Richard's captain?

Carol

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> Large? It was four years - I don;t find that creepy at all! The average
> age difference between husband and wife these days is about three years.

There were exceptions, of course - iirc MB had Henry when she was 12 - but
generally speaking people in the past went into puberty later than we do.
If Richard had been less than, OK, say 17, Ann would probably have been
pre-pubertal.

He is under-represented in fiction because solid Ricardians aren't writing any.

Considering that a great many people have come to Richard through "Daughter of Time," which is fiction that is not a sappy, Mary-Sue romance, perhaps more than a few Ricardians should consider writing the sort of Richard *literary biographies* (think Irving Stone and Michener) they'd like to read.

"The Sunne in Splendour" is the best we've got -- and it's been good enough to stay in print since it was written, which says a heck of a lot.

Most people attracted to Richard through the newest research revealed through the discovery of his bones aren't going to look for him at the British Library.

As for fictional accounts that aren't sappy...try The Broken Sword.

~Weds

--- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))
>
> I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.
>
> It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?
>
> Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
> >
> > It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
> >
> > In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
> >
>

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:07 PM
Subject: Richard in Fiction?


> He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather,

That comparison with the Mafia is so often made that people take it for
granted, but imo it's lazy and only very weakly appropriate (unless you're
thinking specifically of the Woodvilles). It implies a level of
organisation and pre-planning which was singularly lacking. And there was
no obsessive honour system, or strong ritualistic loyalties (most people
weren't loyal *enough*), or overt machismo, or (usually) criminal intent -
altogether very much *not* like the Mafia. What there was, imo, was a long,
horrible family quarrel of the "I'm not talking to you because your sister's
boyfriend said something rude to my uncle's stepfather twenty years ago"
variety, with added armies. .

Welcome, tracking posts on the forum is difficult, isn't it?

To answer your question, since the world financial crisis it's quite simply what makes money for the struggling publishing industry that gets published (that is until this month and after that who knows)

Romance - Richard and Anne childhood sweethearts taking on the world against wicked Edward of Lancaster, Warwick and a lot of thigh slapping -Anne O'Brien

Drama - Richard and Anne fighting wicked Warwick, Clarence and Elizabeth Woodville with lots of magic, action, not a lot of fact and lots of thigh slapping - PG.

I speak from the heart as one who has submitted a book for agent's criticism in these times when making money for them is more than ever at a premium. A more balanced view doesn't sell, it's for the minority niche market who are more into these things. Were Paul Bale here he would tell you the same. What makes money is the Game of Thrones, The Tudors etc.

Were Jarman, Penman and Edwards to submit today they'd be told their work is too long and too dull. I'm not being catty against other authors, it's just a decision would-be authors have to make, which is whether to compromise truth for money and it's not an easy one for some. H.




--- In , "arabella.baldwin" <arabella.baldwin@...> wrote:
>
> "It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests
> me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III
> novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood
> sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the
> entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only
> to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?" (angelalice75)
>
> First post - I have a hard time keeping up with this forum.
>
> I agree that it's the contradictions that are most interesting! Richard seems to end up a caricature - either villain or hero. Who was the real human being, neither monster nor saint?
>
> As for fiction,two books seem to give a more balanced characterisation: "Seventh Son" by Reay Tannehill, and "Under the Hog" by Patrick Carleton, if you can find a copy of it. (In which Richard does murder his nephews, but reluctantly.)
>
>
>
> --- In , "angelalice75" <angelalice5657@> wrote:
> >
> > Pansy's comment below struck a chord with me. I have been fascinated by the puzzle of Richard III since I was a kid, but nothing turns me off more than the ghastly way he's presented in most fiction, and I do agree that some of the "unquestionable truths" that are assumed by *some* Ricardians are probably being acquired directly or indirectly through historical novels like "The Sunne in Splendour" (which, by the by, should win some sort of award for the worst Olde English Speak in literature; "Christ Jesu Dickon, be you mad"? :))
> >
> > I think there are many who agree we don't do his memory any favours by slapping on this fictional whitewash. He wasn't a saint, he wasn't (most likely) a perfect husband, he wasn't an incarnation of 21st C masculine desirability. He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains.
> >
> > It's that puzzle of how and why these contradictions came to be which interests me. So, why is it so under-represented in fiction? Why are so many Richard III novels those drippy pieces where he and Anne are (Gawd help us) childhood sweethearts, (separated by sullen meanie Clarence), where Richard spends the entire book acting out every single Mary Sue fantasy the author ever had, only to die at Bosworth, almost as an afterthought?
> >
> > Any exceptions? I honestly can't think of one atm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I can only speak for myself, but I flat-out refuse to read novels about real historical people (romantic or otherwise) and, perversely, I actually enjoy reading hostile sources and biographies about historical figures I like. I enjoy them for the challenge, and because I'm passionate about truth (even when the truth seems impossible to find). There can be no truth without a challenge.
> > >
> > > It's not an 'article of faith' with me that Richard didn't kill his nephews (a phrase used by Pollard, if I remember correctly), and if it were somehow proven he did, I wouldn't spontaneously combust. I don't like Richard because I see him as a perfect, romantic figure; but because I see him as a complex, fascinating man, likely a good man in an impossible set of circumstances, an enigma - not the way that a tortured romantic hero is an enigma, but more like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, where you can see that the picture has a sky and a windmill and a field of tulips and a river in it, but there are chunks missing from the picture and it's of course *possible* there are dead bodies in the river. Or there could just be fish, swimming happily about. Or the fish could be floating upside down, because of nuclear waste... er. Where was I? (Sorry for the absolutely ridiculous analogy. ;))
> > >
> > > In other words, I don't think I'm alone with this. Many "Lady Ricardians" are probably fascinated with the complexity of this picture for similar reasons, and not because they refuse to believe anything unpleasant about their romantic hero. The detective novel is a rather feminine genre, after all.
> > >
> >
>

"angelalice75" wrote:
> [snip] He was the youngest son of a 15th Century Mafia Godfather, who grew up within the morality of his time, but managed - sometimes - to show unusual amounts of probity, loyalty and restraint, and yet ended up branded - possibly rightly - as the worst of villains. [snip]

Carol responds:

Any reason for this harsh characterization of the Duke of York? And, just out of curiosity, how would you characterize Margaret of Anjou?

As for Richard III possibly being branded "the worst of villains," his list of supposed "crimes" (most of which can be disproved or consist of political executions) pale in comparison with those of modern dictators or sadistic rulers such as Genghis Khan or some of the Roman emperors. If you mean that he may have murdered his nephews, please say so. But that would hardly make him "the worst of villains." Even if we're simply considering English kings, he'd have stiff competition from his Angevin ancestors--or the Tudors. Can we avoid hyperbole and keep things in proportion here?

With regard to "Sunne in Splendour," I enjoyed your little dig (snipped) at Penman's style, but the book is well researched in comparison with most fifteenth-century fiction. It's a shame that the characters in all her novels use that same "we be" style, but at least she doesn't attempt to use "thee" and "thou" and confuse the two.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol,
>  
> With all due respect talk to Michael Jones not me! You asked me to do you a favour and paraphrase the pages of his book.
>  
> But I would put it to the top of your pile. It is very good, More, Mancini or not. That's not what it's really about - it's about trying to understand Richard the man.  
>  
> And to me that matters.
> Best Wishes Hilary
Carol responds:

I'm not talking just to you, I' talking to the forum. I'm trying to present my view that he is mistaken, not to argue with you or anyone else. Please allow me to express my views without assuming that I'm arguing with you. To me, this topic is very important, and I'm trying to present the facts regarding what More actually said.

And I do intend to read his book, not for his very odd ideas on More/Lambert, Cecily, et al., but for his views on Bosworth.

At least we agree that it's Richard the Man who matters, but I think we should also understand how Richard the Legend came about and try to counteract it if we can.

I take it you don't want me to bother posting the supposed conversation between Edward and Cecily for us to poke holes in. But I'd like to know if anyone else is interested. It is not, as I've said, Cecily telling Edward that he's illegitimate and it really, Michael Jones apparently to the contrary, has nothing to do with Mancini's comment about the Duchess going into a frenzy and calling her own son illegitimate.

I've been trying very hard to present these ideas and this information logically and to support my views, not to argue with Hilary (who kindly paraphrased them for me) but to show that there is no substance--none whatever--to Jones's position.

I need Marie and Annette! They would engage with me in the kind of discussion I want.

Carol

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?

> There were exceptions, of course - iirc MB had Henry when she was 12 - but
generally speaking people in the past went into puberty later than we do.
If Richard had been less than, OK, say 17, Ann would probably have been
pre-pubertal.

Having said that, I've just remembered that Romeo and Juliet were supposed
to be twelve, so, OK, it would be creepy if Richard were less than sixteen.
They couldn't really be childhood sweethearts, is the point, because when
Richard was an actual child Ann was about five. They would have to have
been early-to-mid-teenager-and-child sweethearts, which imo is still a bit
creepy, or late-teen-and-early-teen sweethearts, which is perfectly
possible. Especially if they knew Warwich was thinking of pairing them up
anyway.

But they might perfectly well have been *friends* when they were both
children, if Richard was the sort of nice boy who plays with younger kids,
and Ann was old for her age. In fact, as the baby of a very large family he
would probably have welcomed the chance to play kindly/lordly big brother to
a child who was younger and smaller than he was, for a change.

William Paston, a successful lawyer, was 42 when he married Agnes Berry, who was 15.

John, duke of Bedford, was in his 40s when he married Jacquetta of Luxemburg, who was about 20.

As far as I know, their contemporaries weren't critical of the age differences. Differences in social status seemed to matter a lot more.

The only criticism of a slight age difference I've read is Hicks' criticism of Richard and Anne's marriage. I don't think it's a valid criticism, because I haven't seen any other 15th century marriages between a much older man and younger heiress criticized.

Marion





--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
>
> They might well have been friends, since they certainly knew each other as
> children, but the age-gap between them was so large that to be actual
> sweethearts when Richard was less than about 18 would be creepy.
>  
> Liz replied:
>  
> Large? It was four years - I don;t find that creepy at all!  The average age difference between husband and wife these days is about three years. 
>
>
>
>

Hilary wrote:
>[snip]
> I speak from the heart as one who has submitted a book for agent's criticism in these times when making money for them is more than ever at a premium. A more balanced view doesn't sell, it's for the minority niche market who are more into these things. Were Paul Bale here he would tell you the same. What makes money is the Game of Thrones, The Tudors etc.
>
> Were Jarman, Penman and Edwards to submit today they'd be told their work is too long and too dull. I'm not being catty against other authors, it's just a decision would-be authors have to make, which is whether to compromise truth for money and it's not an easy one for some. H.

Carol responds:

Maybe all that will change now that Richard is big news. Certainly, the nonfiction books are already starting to come in. And if the writer contrasts herself in the query letter with Philippa Gregory (the competition), she just might sell her novel. Of course, the book needs to start in medias res and have lots of dialogue and action--no leisurely Tolkien-style exposition and setting up, but it doesn't have to be sappy to sell if the writer chooses the right agent or publisher--and hooks them with a great opening sentence and first chapter.

Carol

From: phaecilia
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> As far as I know, their contemporaries weren't critical of the age
> differences. Differences in social status seemed to matter a lot more.

Yes, but in all these cases, the girl was post-pubertal. It's not the age
difference which concerns me, once they had both passed puberty, it's the
idea of them as "childhood sweethearts" (as opposed to possibly childhood
friends and teenage sweethearts) when the age-difference means that Ann
would have to have been about five at the time.

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"First, More says nothing about Mistress Shore as the source of his
"information." He's been talking about the speeches given when Richard was
about to be proclaimed king in relation to the (supposed) charge of Edward
IV's bastardy and the (real) charge that his children were bastards. Here's
how he leads into his imaginary dialogue:

"To lay bastardy in kynge Edward, sowned openly to the rebuke of the
protectours owne mother, which was mother to them both: for in that point
could be none other colour, but to pretend that his own mother was one
aduouteresse which not withstanding to farther this purpose he letted not:
but Natheles he would the point should be lesse & more fauorably handled,
not euen fully plain & directly, but that the matter should be touched a
slope craftely, as though men spared in that point to speke al the trouth
for fere of his displeasure. But the other point concerning the bastardy
that they deuised to sumise in King Edwards children, that wold he should be
openly declared & inforsed to the vttermost. The coloure & pretext wherof
cannot be wel p[er]ceiued, but if we first repete you some thinges longe
before done about king Edwardes mariage." In other words, Richard refused to
openly charge his mother with adultery but let rumors to that effect slip
out. But he allowed the point concerning the bastardy of Edward's children
to be spoken openly.

This comment on Richard leads into his assertion that in order for the
second assertion (the bastardy of Edward's children) to be perceived as a
falsehood, "we" (More? More and Morton?) must first repeat some things that
had been done long before about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.
Not a word about a source, much less about Mistress Shore. (I won't repeat
the conversation itself here, but let me know if you want it.)

As for More's speaking directly with Mistress Shore (EL), here's what he
actually says: "Proper she was & faire: nothing in her body that you would
haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher. Thus say
thei that knew her in her youthe. Albeit some that now se her (for yet she
liueth) deme her neuer to haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me
somwhat like, as though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before
departed, by her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old
lene, withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone. An yet
being euen such: whoso wel aduise her visage, might gesse & deuise which
partes how filled, wold make it a faire face."

In other words, those who knew her in her youth say that she was pretty and
that the only thing you might have wanted to change was to make her a little
taller. However, some that now see her think that she never had a pretty
face, which seems to More like judging past beauty by the appearance of her
scalp taken out of a charnel house. He says (based apparently on hearsay
since he himself has not seen her) that she's now old, lean, withered, and
dried up. but he surmises that if a man looked at her closely, he would see
her former beauty. There is no report even of an imagined conversation with
her (as I mistakenly remembered).

More goes from his description of Mistress Shore and her relationship with
the king (as he imagines it based on what he'd heard) along with another
pleas for sympathy (and an improbable claim that she has been reduced to
begging in her old age) to his account of the beheading of Rivers et al. and
then into the speeches, and then into the supposed conversation between
Edward and Cecily.

How Jones can arrive at the conclusion that Shore/Lambert was More's source
for that conversation, I can't imagine. It's been speculated that he and
Mancini had a common source (Morton? Argentine?) but we can at least be sure
that Shore/Lambert was not Mancini's source!"
//snip//

Doug here:

Talk about red herrings! More's fantasy should smell like unrefrigerated
fish in Arizona!
I find it incredible that those who "rely" on More do so, expecially after
those first two sentences! Mores uses a lie spread a decade or more earlier,
and *not* by Richard by the way, to show that Richard *was* lying about his
nephews' legitimacy? And More even admits that those slandering his mother
had to do so "for fere of his (Richard's) displeasure". And "historians"
have been relying on *this* book for centuries?
Pish! And tosh!
(I can't think of any way to better show how pitiful those two sentences are
as "history" than to ridicule them!)
(personal speculation follows)
As regards to the rumor about the legitimacy of Edward IV; there's nothing
that shows up *before* 1469, is there? Which would be several years *after*
Edward had announced that EW was his wife and would also provide plenty of
time for such a rumor to spread via whispers. Especially *if* those rumors
were based on garbled versions of an actual row between Cecily and Edward
over EW, before being used as a weapon against Edward during the
Re-Adeption.
(end of speculation)
Thanks for the extracts, Carol. Even though something tells me that I'm
going to be very irritated by Jone's *mind-reading*, he's still on my list.
Of books, my list of books!
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/George...the
hero...maybe..


> I find it incredible that those who "rely" on More do so, expecially after
those first two sentences! Mores uses a lie spread a decade or more earlier,
and *not* by Richard by the way, to show that Richard *was* lying about his
nephews' legitimacy? And More even admits that those slandering his mother
had to do so "for fere of his (Richard's) displeasure". And "historians"
have been relying on *this* book for centuries?

He's doing just the same thing he does over Clarence's death. He's taking a
situtation where Richard appeared to be behaving well by protesting strongly
against things - his brother's execution, the accusations against his
mother - which might have been thought to serve his interests, and where
there were probably at least some people who wondered if he was as sincere
as he seemed. Then he's taken that as proof that he *wasn't* sincere, and
turned what was almost certainly Richard's honesty and lack of self-interest
into evidence of dishonesty and cunning.

There's a logical principle which I can never remember the damn' name of,
but which is often relevant in modern journalism. Basically, if some
observeable action or fact is compatible with X being true, but is also
compatible with X not being true, then it isn't evidence that X is true -
only that (based on this particular action or fact) X cannot be ruled out.
So, Richard's actions on being offered the crown are compatible with his
having schemed to get it and now pretending to a false reluctance, so some
historians take that as proof that he indeed schemed to get it - but they're
also just what you'd expect if he'd been steam-rollered by events and was
genuinely reluctant.

More, similarly, has taken the fact that it's not *impossible* that
Richard's displeasure at these events was feigned, and turned that around
and presented it as proof that it *was* feigned.

Doug don't disregard the book (of which Carol asked me to surmarise a smidgeon) just because of this. It is a VERY good book about the psychology of Richard at Bosworth and sits well aside JAH's last days. Jones is a fine military historian, a good writer and a sympathetic Ricardian.  Cheers H



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 6:06
Subject: Re: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 


Carol wrote:
//snip//
"First, More says nothing about Mistress Shore as the source of his
"information." He's been talking about the speeches given when Richard was
about to be proclaimed king in relation to the (supposed) charge of Edward
IV's bastardy and the (real) charge that his children were bastards. Here's
how he leads into his imaginary dialogue:

"To lay bastardy in kynge Edward, sowned openly to the rebuke of the
protectours owne mother, which was mother to them both: for in that point
could be none other colour, but to pretend that his own mother was one
aduouteresse which not withstanding to farther this purpose he letted not:
but Natheles he would the point should be lesse & more fauorably handled,
not euen fully plain & directly, but that the matter should be touched a
slope craftely, as though men spared in that point to speke al the trouth
for fere of his displeasure. But the other point concerning the bastardy
that they deuised to sumise in King Edwards children, that wold he should be
openly declared & inforsed to the vttermost. The coloure & pretext wherof
cannot be wel p[er]ceiued, but if we first repete you some thinges longe
before done about king Edwardes mariage." In other words, Richard refused to
openly charge his mother with adultery but let rumors to that effect slip
out. But he allowed the point concerning the bastardy of Edward's children
to be spoken openly.

This comment on Richard leads into his assertion that in order for the
second assertion (the bastardy of Edward's children) to be perceived as a
falsehood, "we" (More? More and Morton?) must first repeat some things that
had been done long before about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.
Not a word about a source, much less about Mistress Shore. (I won't repeat
the conversation itself here, but let me know if you want it.)

As for More's speaking directly with Mistress Shore (EL), here's what he
actually says: "Proper she was & faire: nothing in her body that you would
haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher. Thus say
thei that knew her in her youthe. Albeit some that now se her (for yet she
liueth) deme her neuer to haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me
somwhat like, as though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before
departed, by her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old
lene, withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone. An yet
being euen such: whoso wel aduise her visage, might gesse & deuise which
partes how filled, wold make it a faire face."

In other words, those who knew her in her youth say that she was pretty and
that the only thing you might have wanted to change was to make her a little
taller. However, some that now see her think that she never had a pretty
face, which seems to More like judging past beauty by the appearance of her
scalp taken out of a charnel house. He says (based apparently on hearsay
since he himself has not seen her) that she's now old, lean, withered, and
dried up. but he surmises that if a man looked at her closely, he would see
her former beauty. There is no report even of an imagined conversation with
her (as I mistakenly remembered).

More goes from his description of Mistress Shore and her relationship with
the king (as he imagines it based on what he'd heard) along with another
pleas for sympathy (and an improbable claim that she has been reduced to
begging in her old age) to his account of the beheading of Rivers et al. and
then into the speeches, and then into the supposed conversation between
Edward and Cecily.

How Jones can arrive at the conclusion that Shore/Lambert was More's source
for that conversation, I can't imagine. It's been speculated that he and
Mancini had a common source (Morton? Argentine?) but we can at least be sure
that Shore/Lambert was not Mancini's source!"
//snip//

Doug here:

Talk about red herrings! More's fantasy should smell like unrefrigerated
fish in Arizona!
I find it incredible that those who "rely" on More do so, expecially after
those first two sentences! Mores uses a lie spread a decade or more earlier,
and *not* by Richard by the way, to show that Richard *was* lying about his
nephews' legitimacy? And More even admits that those slandering his mother
had to do so "for fere of his (Richard's) displeasure". And "historians"
have been relying on *this* book for centuries?
Pish! And tosh!
(I can't think of any way to better show how pitiful those two sentences are
as "history" than to ridicule them!)
(personal speculation follows)
As regards to the rumor about the legitimacy of Edward IV; there's nothing
that shows up *before* 1469, is there? Which would be several years *after*
Edward had announced that EW was his wife and would also provide plenty of
time for such a rumor to spread via whispers. Especially *if* those rumors
were based on garbled versions of an actual row between Cecily and Edward
over EW, before being used as a weapon against Edward during the
Re-Adeption.
(end of speculation)
Thanks for the extracts, Carol. Even though something tells me that I'm
going to be very irritated by Jone's *mind-reading*, he's still on my list.
Of books, my list of books!
Doug

Carol, I am not arguing with you. Please say what you wish. All this started from a bit of banter between me and Eileen about George of Clarence and you insisted on us quoting sources, which we both did.
 
History is like painting by numbers, where we have sources the numbers are there, where they are missing we have blanks and the fun of history, for me at least, is the discussion around conjecture and the ability to put and take both sides of an argument, not always to stick rigidly to the interepretation of available sources.  I leave arguing about that to the Professors past and present who have spent years locked away studying them. I know you and Marie feel differently about that and I respect your opinion.
 
I do have a qualification in history, and not a bad one, so I'm a little upset you find me so difficult to talk to.  Again with sincere best wishes   H. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 0:10
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol,
>  
> With all due respect talk to Michael Jones not me! You asked me to do you a favour and paraphrase the pages of his book.
>  
> But I would put it to the top of your pile. It is very good, More, Mancini or not. That's not what it's really about - it's about trying to understand Richard the man.  
>  
> And to me that matters.
> Best Wishes Hilary
Carol responds:

I'm not talking just to you, I' talking to the forum. I'm trying to present my view that he is mistaken, not to argue with you or anyone else. Please allow me to express my views without assuming that I'm arguing with you. To me, this topic is very important, and I'm trying to present the facts regarding what More actually said.

And I do intend to read his book, not for his very odd ideas on More/Lambert, Cecily, et al., but for his views on Bosworth.

At least we agree that it's Richard the Man who matters, but I think we should also understand how Richard the Legend came about and try to counteract it if we can.

I take it you don't want me to bother posting the supposed conversation between Edward and Cecily for us to poke holes in. But I'd like to know if anyone else is interested. It is not, as I've said, Cecily telling Edward that he's illegitimate and it really, Michael Jones apparently to the contrary, has nothing to do with Mancini's comment about the Duchess going into a frenzy and calling her own son illegitimate.

I've been trying very hard to present these ideas and this information logically and to support my views, not to argue with Hilary (who kindly paraphrased them for me) but to show that there is no substance--none whatever--to Jones's position.

I need Marie and Annette! They would engage with me in the kind of discussion I want.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but in all these cases, the girl was post-pubertal. It's not the age difference which concerns me, once they had both passed puberty, it's the idea of them as "childhood sweethearts" (as opposed to possibly childhood friends and teenage sweethearts) when the age-difference means that Ann would have to have been about five at the time.
>
Carol responds:

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Anne was born June 11, 1456, which made her about three and a half years younger than Richard, He was thirteen when he entered Warwick's household, so Anne would have been nine or ten. When he left at sixteen, she would have been twelve or thirteen. Just two years later (December 1470), she was married (through no choice of her own) to Edward of Lancaster, who was one year and ten days younger than Richard, making him seventeen at the time. She was fourteen. What's sad to me is not so much her age as the fact that this boy had been her family's enemy since her earliest childhood whereas Richard was her friend and cousin, raised along with her for three years. And if Marie is right that Warwick had already obtained a papal dispensation for them along with the one for George and Isabel, they would have grown up expecting to marry. And child marriages were, of course, quite common though they generally weren't consummated until the girl was fourteen or older.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> I'm not sure where you get that idea. Anne was born June 11, 1456, which
> made her about three and a half years younger than Richard, He was
> thirteen when he entered Warwick's household, so Anne would have been nine
> or ten.

Kendall has Richard living at Middleham in two lots, the first time starting
in November 1461 when he was just turned nine and Ann was just short of five
and a half. Is he wrong?

If you are right and Richard didn't even go to Middleham until he was
thriteen then they could never have been childhood sweethearts for the
simple reason that they didn't know each other when he was a child, only
when he was a youth.

> And if Marie is right that Warwick had already obtained a papal
> dispensation for them along with the one for George and Isabel, they would
> have grown up expecting to marry.

And how they would respond to that would depend on their characters and
relationship - they might have gone "We are destined to be together forever;
sweetheart, will you be mine?" or they might equally have gone "I wouldn't
marry *you* if you were the last boy/girl on Earth."

From "English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth
Century" by Peter D Clarke, EHR CXX 488 (Sept 2005):

Dates when the papel dispensations were granted

24 Nov 1467, by the "cardinal penitentiary Filippo Calandrini" - Charles of
Burgundy of the Cambrai diocese & Margaret of the York diocese
17 May 1468, another dispensation was granted, apparently because of some
perceived flaw in the first; the article includes the (Latin) text of the
letter preserved At Archives departementales du Nord (Lille), B429-16141
[wedding 3 Jul 1468 at Damme near Bruges]

17 Aug 1470 dispensation granted at Rome by the penitentiary in response to
one or more of 3 different supplications on behalf of "Nobiles Eduardus de
Anglia, laicus Londoniensis diocesis et Anna de Warwyk, domicella
Saresbiriensis diocesis"
[date of the actual marriage seems to be in dispute]

22 Apr 1742 papal dispensation granted for "Ricardus, dux Glouirestere
laicus Lincolniensis diocesis, et Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis"
[date of actual marriage unknown]

27 Mar 1484 dispensation by the penitentiary granted for Henricus
Richemont, laicus Eboracensis diocesis et Elisabet Plantageneta, mulier
Londoniensis diocesis"
16 Jan 1486 another dispensation granted by the papal legate to England &
Scotland, James of Imola "under a papal faculty"
[marriage 18 Jan 1486]
2 Mar 1468 yet another dispensation from Innocent VIII
27 Mar 1486 the pope confirmed this grant "and the right of succession of
Henry and his heirs"

A J


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:35 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Yes, but in all these cases, the girl was post-pubertal. It's not the
> age difference which concerns me, once they had both passed puberty, it's
> the idea of them as "childhood sweethearts" (as opposed to possibly
> childhood friends and teenage sweethearts) when the age-difference means
> that Ann would have to have been about five at the time.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure where you get that idea. Anne was born June 11, 1456, which
> made her about three and a half years younger than Richard, He was thirteen
> when he entered Warwick's household, so Anne would have been nine or ten.
> When he left at sixteen, she would have been twelve or thirteen. Just two
> years later (December 1470), she was married (through no choice of her own)
> to Edward of Lancaster, who was one year and ten days younger than Richard,
> making him seventeen at the time. She was fourteen. What's sad to me is not
> so much her age as the fact that this boy had been her family's enemy since
> her earliest childhood whereas Richard was her friend and cousin, raised
> along with her for three years. And if Marie is right that Warwick had
> already obtained a papal dispensation for them along with the one for
> George and Isabel, they would have grown up expecting to marry. And child
> marriages were, of course, quite common though they generally weren't
> consummated until the girl was fourteen or older.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

"Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
Doug here:
>
> Talk about red herrings! More's fantasy should smell like unrefrigerated fish in Arizona! I find it incredible that those who "rely" on More do so, expecially after those first two sentences! Mores uses a lie spread a decade or more earlier, and *not* by Richard by the way, to show that Richard *was* lying about his nephews' legitimacy? And More even admits that those slandering his mother had to do so "for fere of his (Richard's) displeasure". And "historians" have been relying on *this* book for centuries?
> Pish! And tosh! (I can't think of any way to better show how pitiful those two sentences are as "history" than to ridicule them!)

[snip]
> Thanks for the extracts, Carol. Even though something tells me that I'm going to be very irritated by Jone's *mind-reading*, he's still on my list. Of books, my list of books!

Carol responds:

You're welcome, Doug. The whole of More's "History" is like that, beating around the bush, insinuating, and once in awhile sneaking in a truth about Richard (he was displeased by the slanders against his mother or, in another section, he protested against Clarence's execution). It seems to me that readers have swept away all the "some wise men deems" and admissions of rumor and obfuscation (as in those first two sentences) and retained only the obviously imaginary dialogue and action (which amounts to historical fiction) as some sort of eyewitness account when not even Morton (much less More, who was a little boy) could have been present in most of those instances.

But Mistress Shore as the source (via pillow talk) for the imagined conversation between Edward and his mother is certainly a new misreading of More. Doug, if you're interested in the purported conversation, in which Cecily tells Edward to marry Elizabeth Lucy rather than Elizabeth Woodville, I can link to it or quote it. It's nothing but a set-up to "prove" that there was no precontract and has nothing to do with Edward's own legitimacy.

That rumor, as we've established, dates to before Barnet (even Louis XI had heard it, probably from Warwick, and took to calling Edward "Blaybourne"). But if there was an argument between Edward and his mother, it must have related to the Eleanor Butler marriage invalidating the one to Elizabeth Woodville and making his own children bastards. (I suspect that there was no such conversation, whether as I've imagined it or as Mancini reported it based on court gossip nineteen years later. As for More, well, he belongs on a heap of fish bones in Arizona--only it's not hot enough yet for him to smell really foul. (Seriously, I think his work needs to be closely examined to determine what it is--clearly not history, probably not a moral tract given the roundabout way in which he presents his "information," most likely the parody of Tudor historians that Hanham has suggested. Guess I need to read her book again, much as I dislike her.

And Jones is on my reading list, too. I'll just smother a laugh as I read his misreading of More.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I am not arguing with you. Please say what you wish. All this started from a bit of banter between me and Eileen about George of Clarence and you insisted on us quoting sources, which we both did.
>  
> History is like painting by numbers, where we have sources the numbers are there, where they are missing we have blanks and the fun of history, for me at least, is the discussion around conjecture and the ability to put and take both sides of an argument, not always to stick rigidly to the interepretation of available sources.  I leave arguing about that to the Professors past and present who have spent years locked away studying them. I know you and Marie feel differently about that and I respect your opinion.
>  
> I do have a qualification in history, and not a bad one, so I'm a little upset you find me so difficult to talk to.  Again with sincere best wishes   H. 

Carol responds:

You keep telling me to talk to Michael Jones, not you, which makes me think that you're not even reading my posts and I'm doing all this work for nothing. That seems to be a semipolite way of saying that you want me to drop the topic. I would think that your qualification in history would make you interested in what I have to say. Instead, I just feel dismissed. I'm gratified that Doug read it and understood my point. I'm sorry that you seem uninterested.

By the way, I do have a PhD, which explains my professorlike penchant to analyze sources. (I wrote a 600-plus-page dissertation analyzing a biography of Shelley.) But surely, examining More, who has caused so much damage to our understanding of Richard, deserves our attention?

Feel free to ignore my posts if they bore or confuse you, but I hope that others may benefit from this analysis. As for rigidity in interpreting sources, that's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I'm trying to look closely at More's words to see what he really says and just how it fits with how others have interpreted him.

Carol

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..


> I'm trying to look closely at More's words to see what he really says and
> just how it fits with how others have interpreted him.

I for one find it interesting - in part because one of my minor amusements
is spotting where, as an Australian friend put it this morning in re. Susan
Higginbotham's use of "no doubt", an author is "hustling you across some
very shaky reasoning before the creaking gives it away".

Carol, Of course I read your posts and I said I respected you. I made the comment because at least one other person on the forum thought that by quoting Jones I was quoting my own views and arguing with you! I could see myself getting inundated with arguments which were aimed at Jones, not me, but these folks didn't realise it. Of course More is worth analysis in all his versions, I never said he wasn't. I realise the worth of analysing sources; the ones I analyse are different to yours and I wouldn't dream of stepping on your toes. I honestly don't know what else I can say? When I offered you my sincere good wishes I meant it. I just don't know what else to say ......  



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 16:48
Subject: Re: Paul/George...the hero...maybe..

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol, I am not arguing with you. Please say what you wish. All this started from a bit of banter between me and Eileen about George of Clarence and you insisted on us quoting sources, which we both did.
>  
> History is like painting by numbers, where we have sources the numbers are there, where they are missing we have blanks and the fun of history, for me at least, is the discussion around conjecture and the ability to put and take both sides of an argument, not always to stick rigidly to the interepretation of available sources.  I leave arguing about that to the Professors past and present who have spent years locked away studying them. I know you and Marie feel differently about that and I respect your opinion.
>  
> I do have a qualification in history, and not a bad one, so I'm a little upset you find me so difficult to talk to.  Again with sincere best wishes   H. 

Carol responds:

You keep telling me to talk to Michael Jones, not you, which makes me think that you're not even reading my posts and I'm doing all this work for nothing. That seems to be a semipolite way of saying that you want me to drop the topic. I would think that your qualification in history would make you interested in what I have to say. Instead, I just feel dismissed. I'm gratified that Doug read it and understood my point. I'm sorry that you seem uninterested.

By the way, I do have a PhD, which explains my professorlike penchant to analyze sources. (I wrote a 600-plus-page dissertation analyzing a biography of Shelley.) But surely, examining More, who has caused so much damage to our understanding of Richard, deserves our attention?

Feel free to ignore my posts if they bore or confuse you, but I hope that others may benefit from this analysis. As for rigidity in interpreting sources, that's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I'm trying to look closely at More's words to see what he really says and just how it fits with how others have interpreted him.

Carol

Carol

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> From "English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century" by Peter D Clarke, EHR CXX 488 (Sept 2005):
>
> Dates when the papel dispensations were granted
>
[snip]
>
> 22 Apr 1742 papal dispensation granted for "Ricardus, dux Glouirestere laicus Lincolniensis diocesis, et Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis" [date of actual marriage unknown] [snip]

Carol responds:

As Marie has shown in a file that she recently uploaded, that particular dispensation was for Richard's relationship to Edward of Lancaster, Anne's late husband, not for their relationship to each other (first cousins once removed). That they received this 1472 (I like your typo of 1742, though; it matches my "seventh" for "seventeenth" century) dispensation for an impediment that didn't exist earlier implies that they already had the dispensation for their blood relationship.

Here's a link to Marie's article:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files/ (or just click the Files link on the website)

Scroll down to Dispensation Article for Ricardian 2007.doc

Diriment Impediments, Dispensations & Divorce: RIII

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Kendall has Richard living at Middleham in two lots, the first time starting in November 1461 when he was just turned nine and Ann was just short of five and a half. Is he wrong? [snip]

Carol responds:

Apparently, since the only evidence we have is for a payment for Richard's maintenance at about the same time that Warwick received Francis Lovell's wardship and the rights to his marriage. Off the top of my head, I recall that Richard was with George and Margaret at the Pastons' for awhile after his return from Burgundy, then with Archbishop Bourchier. After he became Duke of Gloucester, he apparently lived at court (along with George and Margaret?) until Edward sent him to live with Warwick. When Marie returns, you can ask her for more details.

Carol

Yeah - sorry about the typo. I spend so much time transcribing records
from the 1700's, 174- is a repetitive error on my part for 147- and I
should have caught it.

A J

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > From "English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the
> Fifteenth Century" by Peter D Clarke, EHR CXX 488 (Sept 2005):
> >
> > Dates when the papel dispensations were granted
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > 22 Apr 1742 papal dispensation granted for "Ricardus, dux Glouirestere
> laicus Lincolniensis diocesis, et Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis"
> [date of actual marriage unknown] [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As Marie has shown in a file that she recently uploaded, that particular
> dispensation was for Richard's relationship to Edward of Lancaster, Anne's
> late husband, not for their relationship to each other (first cousins once
> removed). That they received this 1472 (I like your typo of 1742, though;
> it matches my "seventh" for "seventeenth" century) dispensation for an
> impediment that didn't exist earlier implies that they already had the
> dispensation for their blood relationship.
>
> Here's a link to Marie's article:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files/ (or just
> click the Files link on the website)
>
> Scroll down to Dispensation Article for Ricardian 2007.doc
>
> Diriment Impediments, Dispensations & Divorce: RIII
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> Apparently, since the only evidence we have is for a payment for Richard's
> maintenance at about the same time that Warwick received Francis Lovell's
> wardship and the rights to his marriage. Off the top of my head, I recall
> that Richard was with George and Margaret at the Pastons' for awhile after
> his return from Burgundy, then with Archbishop Bourchier. After he became
> Duke of Gloucester, he apparently lived at court (along with George and
> Margaret?) until Edward sent him to live with Warwick. When Marie returns,
> you can ask her for more details.

Fwiw, Pamela Tudor-Craig, writing in the famous catalogue, also says
"Richard was a page in the household of the Earl of Warwick from November
1461 for three years" and associates this with a hand-written list of the
duties of a page, apparently in Richard's own boyhood hand and bound in with
the Ipomedon. I don't know what her evidence for his location is, since the
list of duties doesn't say whose page he is. He was at York in December
1463 but then so was Edward, who must have come up from London.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol, Of course I read your posts and I said I respected you. I made the comment because at least one other person on the forum thought that by quoting Jones I was quoting my own views and arguing with you! I could see myself getting inundated with arguments which were aimed at Jones, not me, but these folks didn't realise it. Of course More is worth analysis in all his versions, I never said he wasn't. I realise the worth of analysing sources; the ones I analyse are different to yours and I wouldn't dream of stepping on your toes. I honestly don't know what else I can say? When I offered you my sincere good wishes I meant it. I just don't know what else to say.

Carol responds:

Okay. I just felt that you were saying that I should write to Michael Jones and stop arguing with you (which I wasn't doing). All I wanted to do was show what More was actually doing and that it had no connection with either Mistress Shore/Elizabeth Lambert or Cecily's supposed remark that Edward was illegitimate (as reported in Mancini, which More could not have read though they may have had a common source).

Now that we've got that straight, I guess we can go back to having a normal discussion and try not to say things that the other might misconstrue. I'm wondering if some of the confusion might be caused by your sharing a last name with Michael Jones? (If so, fellow posters, please be aware that I would never call Hilary "Jones"!)

So would you or anyone else be interested in the conversation that More puts in the mouths of Edward and his mother? If not, I'm happy to drop this thread.

I do think that anyone here who hasn't yet forced him- or herself to read More should do so. It's best to know thine enemy.

Carol

Carol earlier:
> > I'm trying to look closely at More's words to see what he really says and just how it fits with how others have interpreted him.

Claire M Jordan responded:
> I for one find it interesting - in part because one of my minor amusements is spotting where, as an Australian friend put it this morning in re. Susan Higginbotham's use of "no doubt", an author is "hustling you across some very shaky reasoning before the creaking gives it away".

Carol again:

Then by all means have a go at reading More, maybe in modern translation first and then in the original, which is admittedly tough going even with notes and a glossary. You'll find plenty of shaky reasoning being hustled. The big question is still why he wrote it since he never submitted it for publication and kept cutting off at the point where he would have to present Henry Tudor (whose death he actually welcomed) as the hero of Bosworth.

I'm wondering if maybe my continually forgetting to change the subject line (sorry, Neil!) might have something to do with the seeming lack of interest in the thread. It certainly had nothing to do with Paul (hi, Paul!) and only a teeny relationship to George of Clarence (at his least heroic).

Carol

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

> Kendall has Richard living at Middleham in two lots, the first time starting
> in November 1461 when he was just turned nine and Ann was just short of five and a half. Is he wrong?

Charles Ross's biography revised/contradicted Kendall on some points, and I think replaced Kendall in current historian minds?

Ross has Richard coming to Middleham later. I believe Ross says the error occurred when Kendall wrongly interpreted E4's payment to Warwick for Richard's training. I can't get to my copy of Ross at the moment, but perhaps Carol will clarify/tell me if I'm wrong?

Warwick intended his daughters to marry well, and some writers think "well" meant that they would marry George and Edward. I think it's also Ross who brought up the point that one of the things that contributed to Warwick's desertion was Edward allowing the males in EW's family to snatch up all the eligible males of the nobility *except* for Richard and George. When Edward refused to allow Isabel and Anne to marry George and Richard...well, you know what Warwick did.

The matter of the dukes marrying Warwick's daughters just seems to be another point where Warwick expected Edward to fall in line, but he didn't.

So in the end, it may be that Richard and Anne expected to marry because Warwick expected them to marry as part of his own, personal plans.

~Weds

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> Ross has Richard coming to Middleham later. I believe Ross says the error
> occurred when Kendall wrongly interpreted E4's payment to Warwick for
> Richard's training.

OK. But then we have Richard (apparently - it seems it looks like his
writing but it's not absolutely definite that it is) writing out a list of
the duties of a page, presumably for his own use. Would he have been acting
as a page as late as 13, after he had already commanded his own army? If
not, who else's page could he have been at around 9-12, if not Warwick's?

Wednesday wrote:

> Charles Ross's biography revised/contradicted Kendall on some points, and I think replaced Kendall in current historian minds?
>
> Ross has Richard coming to Middleham later. I believe Ross says the error occurred when Kendall wrongly interpreted E4's payment to Warwick for Richard's training. I can't get to my copy of Ross at the moment, but perhaps Carol will clarify/tell me if I'm wrong? [snip]

Carol responds:

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't actually own a copy of Ross, but the Google Books version has relatively few gaps in it, so I consult it from there. It's also pretty easy to search if you figure out a workable search term (I used "wardship Lovell" without quotes). Here's the relevant passage:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PA7&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Lovell+wardship&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FbIvUYqEFKbtiwKbrYAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Lovell%20wardship&f=false

If the long URL doesn't work, try this Tinyurl:

http://tinyurl.com/ckg6jwz

If you find your copy of Ross, it's on page seven.

BTW, one of my hopes is that Ross's moderate traditionalist biography will be superseded as Kendall's was by Ross's. The pendulum needs to swing back in the other direction. (Kendall's was not altogether favorable; he did actually consider the possibility that Richard had his nephews murdered. But he rightly, IMO, set that controversial issue aside and focused on what we actually knew at the time of his writing. Ross corrects some of those errors but makes some of his own, or distorts the evidence (for example, he quotes only part of Richard's letter to Bishop Russell about Thomas Lynom and Mistress Shore, creating an entirely wrong impression).

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> OK. But then we have Richard (apparently - it seems it looks like his writing but it's not absolutely definite that it is) writing out a list of the duties of a page, presumably for his own use. Would he have been acting as a page as late as 13, after he had already commanded his own army? If not, who else's page could he have been at around 9-12, if not Warwick's?

Carol responds:

Edward's? That might be how Edward learned how quick and bright his little brother was and why he assigned him duties that he didn't assign to the less promising (or less complaisant) George. (Or George was already set in heir-to-the-throne mode and wouldn't think of serving Edward as a page or in any other capacity.) Just a thought.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Richard in Fiction?


> Edward's? That might be how Edward learned how quick and bright his little
> brother was

Could well be. OTOH I've had a look at Ross and he doesn't actually produce
any evidence that Richard *didn't* go to Middleham in 1461 - only that if he
did it wasn't for as long as Kendall and Tudor-Craig assume, since he was
back in the south in 1463.

Hey, you guys. Been off the board for a couple days doing some errands that have piled up since the announcement earlier this month. Vacuuming? Hah! That can wait until I can't find the dogs in the dust bunnies!

I wanted to address this point in particular because I think it's important, and I wanted to take some time to do so, so be forewarned that it's gonna take some endurance, on an already-stuffed board, to get through this post.

Arthur, if I read your post correctly, you're wondering if some of the people on the board, specifically the older women, have a thing for Bad Boys, and if that is coloring our perceptions of Richard III (such as, for example, making it possible for us to overlook murder in our positive view of his character). It's a good question, and one that appears to be based in a quite understandable unfamiliarity with the types of people who become Ricardians, and why that might be.

A lot of us are older, it's true. A lot of us are women, it's true. And while women have been known to be ensnared by a pretty, stubbled face and a fine swaggering sashay, we also have concerns and interests and hobbies and worries about the future and aggravations about the present and aspirations that have nothing to do with whether we think a guy has a body like a god and a face like mortal sin, as Katharine Hepburn put it so memorably in "The Lion in Winter". One of those non-sexual aspects of what interests women is a pretty fundamental question: how do we create and sustain justice in a world of inequality?

Women and justice, justice and women, a big topic in a big, diverse community. We're passionate about the question in a way that you'd pretty much have to be a member of a group commonly targeted for oppression to understand. As just one consideration, most of us have children, and we want those children to grow up safe, clothed, sheltered, well fed, and able to take advantage of opportunities for education, entertainment, and enlightenment. There are a lot of roadblocks in the way of that seemingly simple goal, and the roadblocks, although they get smaller as the world grows richer, are still infuriatingly and unnecessarily present.

We might be excused for thinking that the people who run the world don't share a commitment to justice: from prehistoric times until right this minute, each of us can cite example after example of self-indulgence, clawing for power or wealth, or ambition that leads to abuses. When we find a powerful person (which, throughout human history, means we are overwhelmingly likely to be talking about a man) who does share our commitment to justice, that person can become a talisman and an inspiration (because fighting for something you know you're never really going to get is exhausting).

Richard III was just such a person, the historical record indicates. Over and over again, in letters, proclamations, laws, meeting minutes, and other records--stuff other than the biased screeds of axe-grinders in the pay of the winners who were by God gonna damn well write that history--Richard comes across as our kind of guy. He cared about the common people, he took his job seriously, he didn't abuse his privilege in self-indulgence, and he was decent, in an era that didn't really demand it, to women and children. He's our kind of guy.

In a perverse way, it's the vilification after Richard's death that indicates that he was on the right track: when you threaten the status quo (say, by living your life as though meritocracy, rather than identity privilege, should be the way things work), you're gonna see mud, bricks, arrows, and bullets headed in your direction. No wonder the Lancastrians and Tudors said nasty things about Richard: he occupied himself with making the country run better rather than building himself a luxury bathroom with hot and cold running money taps.

That doesn't make it any more fair that Richard's reputation was blackened by people who knew exactly what they were doing. We need examples like the real Richard, not the cardboard simulacrum with the sneer, the hump, and the hobby of relative-murder.

Does that mean that we're not objective? Yeah, it does. We're on the other side of the also non-objective crowd who, without having bothered to investigate the (admittedly spotty) historical record for any reasonable evidence that Richard III murdered his nephews to seize the throne, nonetheless assert that it's true. This infuriates Ricardians, with good reason, but it's the same thing that happens to other good people: similar efforts at character assassination have had various amounts of success in trashing the image of the Borgias, the Kennedys, Galileo, Nickelback, and even poor little Anne Hathaway, who just wanted to sing one little song in a movie the very best way of which she was capable.

Why do we care that the truth about Richard III become common knowledge, at least as well known as Shakespeare's villainous hunchback? Because there is no statute of limitations on the righting of an injustice. Because a world in which ordinary people can be exceptionally powerful needs to know that you don't have to be a gold-plated coal-hearted blackguard to get ahead. Because, to a species in which cooperation, not competition, is the true survival strategy, being a nice guy when it's difficult is a supreme virtue. Because Richard III got it right, being a decent person in an era that didn't particularly care about that and being successful anyway, and we're going to need that kind of an example as our ability to marshal destructive forces grows to the point where the survival of life on this planet is at direct risk because of our activities.

Do Ricardians overlook the murder of the Princes in the Tower in their zeal to broadcast a sanitized version of the king's character? Well, we might if there had been any Princes in the Tower: the last time there's a record that anybody in London saw them, they were the king's illegitimate nephews and not "princes" of anything. It might also be tough if there were the slightest shred of reasonable evidence that they were murdered at all, which there isn't; it's more accurate to say "the disappearance" than "the murder". The chain of custody of the human remains found during the construction work at the Tower in the 1600s, alleged to be those of the king's nephews, is irremediably broken; you couldn't possibly build a criminal case tying those bones to those two particular kids, much less asserting with any credibility that Richard III was responsible for them becoming buried bones in the first place. It's not that we're overlooking a murder; there simply is not enough information in the extant records to say that one occurred, much less who was involved.

How do I know that? By studying the historical record. How did I get the opportunity to do so? I started, as so many Ricardians have, with Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", a decidedly non-romantic book--the lead character spends six weeks flat on his back in bed, and not for entertaining reasons--that spells out the basics: who Richard, why vilified, what likely is true. I moved on from there to biographies (Kendall, Carson, Ashdown-Hill, Hanham), to specialty publications (Lamb, Sutton, Hammond, Snyder, Potter, the pro- and anti- chroniclers) and the two florid novels that don't copy Shakespeare (Penman and Hawley Jarman). My next efforts will of necessity involve some mighty expensive material: the Coronation and Book of Hours, Horrox, Harleian, the York records, or possibly a trip to the British Museum and associated locations, provided the lottery comes through.

Along the way, I've gotten pretty good at spotting propaganda, sloppiness, and self-aggrandizement, all of which are not tricks Richard III would have used, and I've found more to admire about the character of the king with every bit of research I do. Does this make me a besotted romantic fool? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a woman of a certain age who thinks England lost a terrific, possibly world-changing monarch to a truly unfortunate combination of rotten luck and simple, unenlightened, murderous, short-sighted self-interest.

Arthur, I hope that addresses some of the points you raised. The rest of y'all, thanks for hanging in with me, as far as you were able to.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > 
> >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> >--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> >> >
> >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> >> >
> >> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > From: EileenB
> >> > > To:
> >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Well said McJohn!
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:16 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Hey, you guys. Been off the board for a couple days doing some errands that have piled up since the announcement earlier this month. Vacuuming? Hah! That can wait until I can't find the dogs in the dust bunnies!
>
> I wanted to address this point in particular because I think it's important, and I wanted to take some time to do so, so be forewarned that it's gonna take some endurance, on an already-stuffed board, to get through this post.
>
> Arthur, if I read your post correctly, you're wondering if some of the people on the board, specifically the older women, have a thing for Bad Boys, and if that is coloring our perceptions of Richard III (such as, for example, making it possible for us to overlook murder in our positive view of his character). It's a good question, and one that appears to be based in a quite understandable unfamiliarity with the types of people who become Ricardians, and why that might be.
>
> A lot of us are older, it's true. A lot of us are women, it's true. And while women have been known to be ensnared by a pretty, stubbled face and a fine swaggering sashay, we also have concerns and interests and hobbies and worries about the future and aggravations about the present and aspirations that have nothing to do with whether we think a guy has a body like a god and a face like mortal sin, as Katharine Hepburn put it so memorably in "The Lion in Winter". One of those non-sexual aspects of what interests women is a pretty fundamental question: how do we create and sustain justice in a world of inequality?
>
> Women and justice, justice and women, a big topic in a big, diverse community. We're passionate about the question in a way that you'd pretty much have to be a member of a group commonly targeted for oppression to understand. As just one consideration, most of us have children, and we want those children to grow up safe, clothed, sheltered, well fed, and able to take advantage of opportunities for education, entertainment, and enlightenment. There are a lot of roadblocks in the way of that seemingly simple goal, and the roadblocks, although they get smaller as the world grows richer, are still infuriatingly and unnecessarily present.
>
> We might be excused for thinking that the people who run the world don't share a commitment to justice: from prehistoric times until right this minute, each of us can cite example after example of self-indulgence, clawing for power or wealth, or ambition that leads to abuses. When we find a powerful person (which, throughout human history, means we are overwhelmingly likely to be talking about a man) who does share our commitment to justice, that person can become a talisman and an inspiration (because fighting for something you know you're never really going to get is exhausting).
>
> Richard III was just such a person, the historical record indicates. Over and over again, in letters, proclamations, laws, meeting minutes, and other records--stuff other than the biased screeds of axe-grinders in the pay of the winners who were by God gonna damn well write that history--Richard comes across as our kind of guy. He cared about the common people, he took his job seriously, he didn't abuse his privilege in self-indulgence, and he was decent, in an era that didn't really demand it, to women and children. He's our kind of guy.
>
> In a perverse way, it's the vilification after Richard's death that indicates that he was on the right track: when you threaten the status quo (say, by living your life as though meritocracy, rather than identity privilege, should be the way things work), you're gonna see mud, bricks, arrows, and bullets headed in your direction. No wonder the Lancastrians and Tudors said nasty things about Richard: he occupied himself with making the country run better rather than building himself a luxury bathroom with hot and cold running money taps.
>
> That doesn't make it any more fair that Richard's reputation was blackened by people who knew exactly what they were doing. We need examples like the real Richard, not the cardboard simulacrum with the sneer, the hump, and the hobby of relative-murder.
>
> Does that mean that we're not objective? Yeah, it does. We're on the other side of the also non-objective crowd who, without having bothered to investigate the (admittedly spotty) historical record for any reasonable evidence that Richard III murdered his nephews to seize the throne, nonetheless assert that it's true. This infuriates Ricardians, with good reason, but it's the same thing that happens to other good people: similar efforts at character assassination have had various amounts of success in trashing the image of the Borgias, the Kennedys, Galileo, Nickelback, and even poor little Anne Hathaway, who just wanted to sing one little song in a movie the very best way of which she was capable.
>
> Why do we care that the truth about Richard III become common knowledge, at least as well known as Shakespeare's villainous hunchback? Because there is no statute of limitations on the righting of an injustice. Because a world in which ordinary people can be exceptionally powerful needs to know that you don't have to be a gold-plated coal-hearted blackguard to get ahead. Because, to a species in which cooperation, not competition, is the true survival strategy, being a nice guy when it's difficult is a supreme virtue. Because Richard III got it right, being a decent person in an era that didn't particularly care about that and being successful anyway, and we're going to need that kind of an example as our ability to marshal destructive forces grows to the point where the survival of life on this planet is at direct risk because of our activities.
>
> Do Ricardians overlook the murder of the Princes in the Tower in their zeal to broadcast a sanitized version of the king's character? Well, we might if there had been any Princes in the Tower: the last time there's a record that anybody in London saw them, they were the king's illegitimate nephews and not "princes" of anything. It might also be tough if there were the slightest shred of reasonable evidence that they were murdered at all, which there isn't; it's more accurate to say "the disappearance" than "the murder". The chain of custody of the human remains found during the construction work at the Tower in the 1600s, alleged to be those of the king's nephews, is irremediably broken; you couldn't possibly build a criminal case tying those bones to those two particular kids, much less asserting with any credibility that Richard III was responsible for them becoming buried bones in the first place. It's not that we're overlooking a murder; there simply is not enough information in the extant records to say that one occurred, much less who was involved.
>
> How do I know that? By studying the historical record. How did I get the opportunity to do so? I started, as so many Ricardians have, with Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", a decidedly non-romantic book--the lead character spends six weeks flat on his back in bed, and not for entertaining reasons--that spells out the basics: who Richard, why vilified, what likely is true. I moved on from there to biographies (Kendall, Carson, Ashdown-Hill, Hanham), to specialty publications (Lamb, Sutton, Hammond, Snyder, Potter, the pro- and anti- chroniclers) and the two florid novels that don't copy Shakespeare (Penman and Hawley Jarman). My next efforts will of necessity involve some mighty expensive material: the Coronation and Book of Hours, Horrox, Harleian, the York records, or possibly a trip to the British Museum and associated locations, provided the lottery comes through.
>
> Along the way, I've gotten pretty good at spotting propaganda, sloppiness, and self-aggrandizement, all of which are not tricks Richard III would have used, and I've found more to admire about the character of the king with every bit of research I do. Does this make me a besotted romantic fool? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a woman of a certain age who thinks England lost a terrific, possibly world-changing monarch to a truly unfortunate combination of rotten luck and simple, unenlightened, murderous, short-sighted self-interest.
>
> Arthur, I hope that addresses some of the points you raised. The rest of y'all, thanks for hanging in with me, as far as you were able to.
>
> --- In , Arthurian wrote:
> >
> > I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases,
> > to a relative NEWCOMER it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion,
> > to have kicked in.
> >
> > Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
> > Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
> >
> >
> > I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
> >
> > In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against,
> > Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT, BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch.
> >
> > In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those
> > [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.'
> >
> > I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
> >
> > I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: EileenB
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> > >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> > >
> > >--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> > >> >
> > >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> > >> >
> > >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From: EileenB
> > >> > > To:
> > >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> > >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> > >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> > >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> > >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> > >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> > >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> > >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Does that mean that we're not objective? Yeah, it does. We're on the other side of the also non-objective crowd who, without having bothered to investigate the (admittedly spotty) historical record for any reasonable evidence that Richard III murdered his nephews to seize the throne, nonetheless assert that it's true. This infuriates Ricardians, with good reason, but it's the same thing that happens to other good people: similar efforts at character assassination have had various amounts of success in trashing the image of the Borgias, the Kennedys, Galileo, Nickelback, and even poor little Anne Hathaway, who just wanted to sing one little song in a movie the very best way of which she was capable.


But this is always the way it goes isn't it. One set of bigotries inviting an equal and opposite set of bigotries in response. Such is the human condition. Does it ever get us anywhere?

Injustice requires lies, but justice doesn't require different lies, it requires truth.

And truth requires objectivity.

So I'm not going to cheer anyone's lack of detachment, because it's the one thing I'm pretty sure we all need more of.

And while Richard may have been a potentially decent-ish chap for his time, and certainly no more of a villain than most, I think it's probably a bit extreme to start painting him as some sort of martyr to decency. He was a medieval prince. He killed real people, willingly for reasons that would get him jailed now. He doesn't deserve, and most certainly wouldn't want to be turned into a saint.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> He killed real people, willingly for reasons that would get him jailed
> now.

That's a matter of definition. With the *possible* exception of Hastings,
afaik everybody Richard had executed was executed for what were at the time
sound legal reasons. They wouldn't now be considered to be legal reasons -
but then there are *no* legal reasons for executing someone nowadays, other
than high treason and setting fire to a naval dockyard during time of war,
if those haven't been done away with yet. [High treason being defined as a
violent physical or sexual attack on the monarch or their immediate family.]

So you could say, he would be jailed now for killing these people, because
everybody who ever executed anybody for anything would be jailed now for
doing it, unless it was for high treason or setting fire to a naval dockyard
during time of war. Or you could just say, he acted according to the laws
of his time.

From: angelalice75
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> He doesn't deserve, and most certainly wouldn't want to be turned into a
> saint.

It also depends on your definition of a saint. Thomas More got sainted for
his sincere religious conviction and courage, despite being a rather
unpleasant and sadistic bloke. Joan of Arc got canonised, and she was a
bloodthirsty murderous fanatic who nowadays would be sent a secure hospital
for the criminally insane.

Yeah, this is where those medieval goggles (which aren't rose-tinted) would come in handy, isn't it? To say whether Richard III would be prosecuted for murder if he lived today is kind of a tough slog, because you'd have to be able to compare the work of, say, a modern judge, prosecution, jury, prison system, and execution team with the supreme head of government saying to this guy in a black hood, "Pick up the axe, I've got a job for you."

One of the most frustrating parts of Ricardian scholarship is that the events we would most dearly like explained are the ones for which no extant documentation has been found. What proof did Richard have that Queen Elizabeth Woodville's relatives were committing treason by plotting his death after he was named Lord Protector? Given what we know about Richard's extensive experience with the law, it would seem that the proof was incontrovertible. But... where is it?

Similarly, what the HELL was that whole thing with Hastings? A guy who lost his temper and acted on impulse, with fatal consequences, maybe half a dozen times that we know of in his entire adult life leaves a room of bantering councillors planning a coronation and returns an hour later in a towering rage, ordering the execution of his family's oldest, closest, staunchest friend. We are not talking some parking-lot rash on the Lamborghini here.

There seems to be this dichotomy going on, where if pro-Richard partisans say he wasn't Shakespeare's eloquently evil, contemptuous, slobbery, limping, prince-slaughtering hunchback, that must mean that we all consider him worthy of canonization. Well, again, it's not that simple; he lived in hard times in which he was expected to mediate disputes, pronounce the sentence of death, accumulate resources (including land and monetary wealth) at the expense of their current owners, and every once in a while strap on the ol' armor and go out to kill as many people on the other side of an alfalfa field as he could. This is hardly the same as running an orphanage for children, puppies, and kittens. I don't know of anyone who seriously argues that Richard's way to heaven was paved by his every perfumed sigh (although we may certainly make fun of the notion). To say that he was not only considerably less brutal than his reputation, but also less brutal than anyone had any right to expect of that time and place, is both more truthful and a much more common assessment.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > He killed real people, willingly for reasons that would get him jailed
> > now.
>
> That's a matter of definition. With the *possible* exception of Hastings,
> afaik everybody Richard had executed was executed for what were at the time
> sound legal reasons. They wouldn't now be considered to be legal reasons -
> but then there are *no* legal reasons for executing someone nowadays, other
> than high treason and setting fire to a naval dockyard during time of war,
> if those haven't been done away with yet. [High treason being defined as a
> violent physical or sexual attack on the monarch or their immediate family.]
>
> So you could say, he would be jailed now for killing these people, because
> everybody who ever executed anybody for anything would be jailed now for
> doing it, unless it was for high treason or setting fire to a naval dockyard
> during time of war. Or you could just say, he acted according to the laws
> of his time.
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> Similarly, what the HELL was that whole thing with Hastings?

I've always thought that Richard had convinced himself that Hastings and
Shore had corrupted his noble brother Edward, because he didn't want to have
to admit to himself that Edward had be corrupt by nature.

> A guy who lost his temper and acted on impulse, with fatal consequences,
> maybe half a dozen times that we know of in his entire adult life leaves a
> room of bantering councillors planning a coronation and returns an hour
> later in a towering rage, ordering the execution of his family's oldest,
> closest, staunchest friend.

It does sound as though he must have found something out, and presumably it
had to do with Hastings sharing Shore with the Woodville mob.

> To say that he was not only considerably less brutal than his reputation,
> but also less brutal than anyone had any right to expect of that time and
> place, is both more truthful and a much more common assessment.

Yes. By modern standards we'd have to say he was the best of a bad bunch
but he *was* the best, by a substantial margin, apart from poor old Harry
Six who was so nice as to be totally ineffectual, as well as being
episodically mad.

If anybody here reads SF, in some ways that makes Richard equivalent to
Signy Mallory in Downbelow Station. Mallory was a semi-pirate in a fleet of
semi-pirates, in a world at war, but she had a strong social conscience and
was the best of the bunch by a mile.

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero


> A guy who lost his temper and acted on impulse, with fatal consequences,
> maybe half a dozen times that we know of in his entire adult life leaves a
> room of bantering councillors planning a coronation and returns an hour
> later in a towering rage, ordering the execution of his family's oldest,
> closest, staunchest friend.

This is something which is near to home for me, incidentally, because my
grandfather - a very senior policeman in Burma, a special ops war hero
"mentioned in despatches" and apparently a thoroughly nice guy - lost his
job and his pension and bequeathed some of his descendants including me a
lifetime of poverty, after momentarily losing his head and ordering his men
to fire on a prison riot which in fact wasn't nearly as dangerous as he
thought it was, resulting in the deaths of several civilian prisoners armed
only with half-bricks and broken crockery.

What an eloquent and perceptive post - as usual McJohn.  H.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 3:52
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero

 

Yeah, this is where those medieval goggles (which aren't rose-tinted) would come in handy, isn't it? To say whether Richard III would be prosecuted for murder if he lived today is kind of a tough slog, because you'd have to be able to compare the work of, say, a modern judge, prosecution, jury, prison system, and execution team with the supreme head of government saying to this guy in a black hood, "Pick up the axe, I've got a job for you."

One of the most frustrating parts of Ricardian scholarship is that the events we would most dearly like explained are the ones for which no extant documentation has been found. What proof did Richard have that Queen Elizabeth Woodville's relatives were committing treason by plotting his death after he was named Lord Protector? Given what we know about Richard's extensive experience with the law, it would seem that the proof was incontrovertible. But... where is it?

Similarly, what the HELL was that whole thing with Hastings? A guy who lost his temper and acted on impulse, with fatal consequences, maybe half a dozen times that we know of in his entire adult life leaves a room of bantering councillors planning a coronation and returns an hour later in a towering rage, ordering the execution of his family's oldest, closest, staunchest friend. We are not talking some parking-lot rash on the Lamborghini here.

There seems to be this dichotomy going on, where if pro-Richard partisans say he wasn't Shakespeare's eloquently evil, contemptuous, slobbery, limping, prince-slaughtering hunchback, that must mean that we all consider him worthy of canonization. Well, again, it's not that simple; he lived in hard times in which he was expected to mediate disputes, pronounce the sentence of death, accumulate resources (including land and monetary wealth) at the expense of their current owners, and every once in a while strap on the ol' armor and go out to kill as many people on the other side of an alfalfa field as he could. This is hardly the same as running an orphanage for children, puppies, and kittens. I don't know of anyone who seriously argues that Richard's way to heaven was paved by his every perfumed sigh (although we may certainly make fun of the notion). To say that he was not only considerably less brutal than his reputation, but also less brutal than
anyone had any right to expect of that time and place, is both more truthful and a much more common assessment.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
>
> > He killed real people, willingly for reasons that would get him jailed
> > now.
>
> That's a matter of definition. With the *possible* exception of Hastings,
> afaik everybody Richard had executed was executed for what were at the time
> sound legal reasons. They wouldn't now be considered to be legal reasons -
> but then there are *no* legal reasons for executing someone nowadays, other
> than high treason and setting fire to a naval dockyard during time of war,
> if those haven't been done away with yet. [High treason being defined as a
> violent physical or sexual attack on the monarch or their immediate family.]
>
> So you could say, he would be jailed now for killing these people, because
> everybody who ever executed anybody for anything would be jailed now for
> doing it, unless it was for high treason or setting fire to a naval dockyard
> during time of war. Or you could just say, he acted according to the laws
> of his time.
>

"Joan of Arc got canonised, and she was a
bloodthirsty murderous fanatic who nowadays would be sent a secure hospital
for the criminally insane."

Well, she might certainly be committed to a hospital and medicated in this
day and age, but Joan was not a murderous bloodthirsty fanatic. She was a
person growing up in a time of war, during a time when her homeland was
being occupied by an invading force. Her home town was severely affected
during this war. In addition, if you read the primary documents on the
trial and other testimony, you discover a person who, voices aside, was a
practical, down-to-earth young woman with a sense of humor and,
interestingly, a touch of skepticism when it came to mysticism. People
liked her. She also had a mind of her own, going against the advice of her
voices on more than one occasion. Her character was not "saintly" by any
means, and she had a very healthy ego; but she was not, in fact, a
bloodthirsty, fanatical maniac either.

Maria
ejbronte@...










On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: angelalice75
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
>
> > He doesn't deserve, and most certainly wouldn't want to be turned into a
> > saint.
>
> It also depends on your definition of a saint. Thomas More got sainted for
> his sincere religious conviction and courage, despite being a rather
> unpleasant and sadistic bloke. Joan of Arc got canonised, and she was a
> bloodthirsty murderous fanatic who nowadays would be sent a secure
> hospital
> for the criminally insane.
>
>
>

Yes and medieval royals who tried to be saints inadvertently wrought disaster on their lands, didn't they? No doubt Richard and Edward would have leaned a lot from the example of Henry VI, who probably was much more of a saint in the Christian sense of the word. As yet I don't think he has a Soceity, has he, though no doubt Eton and King's College drink his health?


________________________________
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 3:07
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero

 



--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:

> Does that mean that we're not objective? Yeah, it does. We're on the other side of the also non-objective crowd who, without having bothered to investigate the (admittedly spotty) historical record for any reasonable evidence that Richard III murdered his nephews to seize the throne, nonetheless assert that it's true. This infuriates Ricardians, with good reason, but it's the same thing that happens to other good people: similar efforts at character assassination have had various amounts of success in trashing the image of the Borgias, the Kennedys, Galileo, Nickelback, and even poor little Anne Hathaway, who just wanted to sing one little song in a movie the very best way of which she was capable.

But this is always the way it goes isn't it. One set of bigotries inviting an equal and opposite set of bigotries in response. Such is the human condition. Does it ever get us anywhere?

Injustice requires lies, but justice doesn't require different lies, it requires truth.

And truth requires objectivity.

So I'm not going to cheer anyone's lack of detachment, because it's the one thing I'm pretty sure we all need more of.

And while Richard may have been a potentially decent-ish chap for his time, and certainly no more of a villain than most, I think it's probably a bit extreme to start painting him as some sort of martyr to decency. He was a medieval prince. He killed real people, willingly for reasons that would get him jailed now. He doesn't deserve, and most certainly wouldn't want to be turned into a saint.

Bravo! Are you a barrister in another life?  H.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 2:16
Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero

 

Hey, you guys. Been off the board for a couple days doing some errands that have piled up since the announcement earlier this month. Vacuuming? Hah! That can wait until I can't find the dogs in the dust bunnies!

I wanted to address this point in particular because I think it's important, and I wanted to take some time to do so, so be forewarned that it's gonna take some endurance, on an already-stuffed board, to get through this post.

Arthur, if I read your post correctly, you're wondering if some of the people on the board, specifically the older women, have a thing for Bad Boys, and if that is coloring our perceptions of Richard III (such as, for example, making it possible for us to overlook murder in our positive view of his character). It's a good question, and one that appears to be based in a quite understandable unfamiliarity with the types of people who become Ricardians, and why that might be.

A lot of us are older, it's true. A lot of us are women, it's true. And while women have been known to be ensnared by a pretty, stubbled face and a fine swaggering sashay, we also have concerns and interests and hobbies and worries about the future and aggravations about the present and aspirations that have nothing to do with whether we think a guy has a body like a god and a face like mortal sin, as Katharine Hepburn put it so memorably in "The Lion in Winter". One of those non-sexual aspects of what interests women is a pretty fundamental question: how do we create and sustain justice in a world of inequality?

Women and justice, justice and women, a big topic in a big, diverse community. We're passionate about the question in a way that you'd pretty much have to be a member of a group commonly targeted for oppression to understand. As just one consideration, most of us have children, and we want those children to grow up safe, clothed, sheltered, well fed, and able to take advantage of opportunities for education, entertainment, and enlightenment. There are a lot of roadblocks in the way of that seemingly simple goal, and the roadblocks, although they get smaller as the world grows richer, are still infuriatingly and unnecessarily present.

We might be excused for thinking that the people who run the world don't share a commitment to justice: from prehistoric times until right this minute, each of us can cite example after example of self-indulgence, clawing for power or wealth, or ambition that leads to abuses. When we find a powerful person (which, throughout human history, means we are overwhelmingly likely to be talking about a man) who does share our commitment to justice, that person can become a talisman and an inspiration (because fighting for something you know you're never really going to get is exhausting).

Richard III was just such a person, the historical record indicates. Over and over again, in letters, proclamations, laws, meeting minutes, and other records--stuff other than the biased screeds of axe-grinders in the pay of the winners who were by God gonna damn well write that history--Richard comes across as our kind of guy. He cared about the common people, he took his job seriously, he didn't abuse his privilege in self-indulgence, and he was decent, in an era that didn't really demand it, to women and children. He's our kind of guy.

In a perverse way, it's the vilification after Richard's death that indicates that he was on the right track: when you threaten the status quo (say, by living your life as though meritocracy, rather than identity privilege, should be the way things work), you're gonna see mud, bricks, arrows, and bullets headed in your direction. No wonder the Lancastrians and Tudors said nasty things about Richard: he occupied himself with making the country run better rather than building himself a luxury bathroom with hot and cold running money taps.

That doesn't make it any more fair that Richard's reputation was blackened by people who knew exactly what they were doing. We need examples like the real Richard, not the cardboard simulacrum with the sneer, the hump, and the hobby of relative-murder.

Does that mean that we're not objective? Yeah, it does. We're on the other side of the also non-objective crowd who, without having bothered to investigate the (admittedly spotty) historical record for any reasonable evidence that Richard III murdered his nephews to seize the throne, nonetheless assert that it's true. This infuriates Ricardians, with good reason, but it's the same thing that happens to other good people: similar efforts at character assassination have had various amounts of success in trashing the image of the Borgias, the Kennedys, Galileo, Nickelback, and even poor little Anne Hathaway, who just wanted to sing one little song in a movie the very best way of which she was capable.

Why do we care that the truth about Richard III become common knowledge, at least as well known as Shakespeare's villainous hunchback? Because there is no statute of limitations on the righting of an injustice. Because a world in which ordinary people can be exceptionally powerful needs to know that you don't have to be a gold-plated coal-hearted blackguard to get ahead. Because, to a species in which cooperation, not competition, is the true survival strategy, being a nice guy when it's difficult is a supreme virtue. Because Richard III got it right, being a decent person in an era that didn't particularly care about that and being successful anyway, and we're going to need that kind of an example as our ability to marshal destructive forces grows to the point where the survival of life on this planet is at direct risk because of our activities.

Do Ricardians overlook the murder of the Princes in the Tower in their zeal to broadcast a sanitized version of the king's character? Well, we might if there had been any Princes in the Tower: the last time there's a record that anybody in London saw them, they were the king's illegitimate nephews and not "princes" of anything. It might also be tough if there were the slightest shred of reasonable evidence that they were murdered at all, which there isn't; it's more accurate to say "the disappearance" than "the murder". The chain of custody of the human remains found during the construction work at the Tower in the 1600s, alleged to be those of the king's nephews, is irremediably broken; you couldn't possibly build a criminal case tying those bones to those two particular kids, much less asserting with any credibility that Richard III was responsible for them becoming buried bones in the first place. It's not that we're overlooking a murder; there
simply is not enough information in the extant records to say that one occurred, much less who was involved.

How do I know that? By studying the historical record. How did I get the opportunity to do so? I started, as so many Ricardians have, with Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", a decidedly non-romantic book--the lead character spends six weeks flat on his back in bed, and not for entertaining reasons--that spells out the basics: who Richard, why vilified, what likely is true. I moved on from there to biographies (Kendall, Carson, Ashdown-Hill, Hanham), to specialty publications (Lamb, Sutton, Hammond, Snyder, Potter, the pro- and anti- chroniclers) and the two florid novels that don't copy Shakespeare (Penman and Hawley Jarman). My next efforts will of necessity involve some mighty expensive material: the Coronation and Book of Hours, Horrox, Harleian, the York records, or possibly a trip to the British Museum and associated locations, provided the lottery comes through.

Along the way, I've gotten pretty good at spotting propaganda, sloppiness, and self-aggrandizement, all of which are not tricks Richard III would have used, and I've found more to admire about the character of the king with every bit of research I do. Does this make me a besotted romantic fool? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a woman of a certain age who thinks England lost a terrific, possibly world-changing monarch to a truly unfortunate combination of rotten luck and simple, unenlightened, murderous, short-sighted self-interest.

Arthur, I hope that addresses some of the points you raised. The rest of y'all, thanks for hanging in with me, as far as you were able to.

--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>
>   I REALLY, REALLY do not wish to offend anybody, least of all [Some] of the lady Ricardians, however in some cases, 
> to a relative NEWCOMER  it appears that the [Possible?] 'Bad Boy Attraction Syndrome' MAY, on occasion, 
> to have kicked in. 
>   
> Alternatively, attraction to those PERCEIVED to have 'Suffered Serious Injustice'.
>  Many very scholarly efforts appear [On occasion] to be intermixed with emotion of/to an interesting degree.
>
>
>   I occasionally wonder if detachment has been lost in a VERY FEW of these cases by beginning to meet Richard in the first instance via the pages of either a 'Romantic Novel' or perhaps one of the several histories that pitch their initial approach thus.
>
>    In the same way as WETHER OR NOT Richard was Disabled [or to WHAT Degree] can be argued for and against, 
> Apart from the Odd [Very Odd?] T.V. Presenter or former England Football Coach however most 'Modern' people believe that 'Disability' is JUST THAT,  BAD LUCK, Bad Midwifery, consanguinity genetics etc., it is NOT a sign of God's Wrath, Witchcraft or 'Outward Sign of Evil'. [A later Queen Anne Bolyne, was wrongly accused [By Tudor Supporters] of having an EXTRA finger - Polydactyly and that this was a sign of Witchcraft/Her being a Witch. 
>
>   In my former professional life, I encountered some individuals who lost detachment and became involved with those 
> [Usually, but not exclusively, of the opposite sex] Held in their custody, invariably this was a 'Vale of Tears.' 
>
> I hope, as a relative newcomer, none of the foregoing is seen as critique or of offence.
>
> I DO BELIEVE Richard was a 'Good King', [Back abnormality aside] however it is still difficult to resolve the question of the 'Princes in the Tower' and his part in their apparent demise. 
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 22:37
> >Subject: Re: Paul/Richard the Hero
> >
> >
> > 
> >Lol...I think we must have very tolerant husbands...What about if the boot was on the other foot and they were fascinated by a long dead Queen/Princess...."You what? You actually want to contribute to her monument??? On yer bike!" Eileen :0)
> >
> >--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >>
> >> He's my hero too, Eileen - and I refuse to be ashamed of it. Call me a "nutter" if you will, but the man speaks to me. 30 years of being fascinated with this man - while working, marrying, kids, you name it - and he still speaks to me. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > To me he is Hero......brought down and replaced by those not fit to lick his boots. And a pox on the memory of MB and Morton... Richard has gone down in history as a 'Usurper'....ironic laugh!.....what does that make Weasle then...? Sometimes...justice/the good guy does not win ...as in this case.
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to going to where he will be laid to rest and pay my respects...
> >> >
> >> > God bless Richard, Anne and their son Edward...Eileen
> >> >
> >> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > From: EileenB
> >> > > To:
> >> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Paul
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > If we all give it a little time I am sure things will calm down
> >> > > > somewhat....I think some of us have felt like we have been on an emotional
> >> > > > roller coaster since the discovery of what feels like an old friend's
> >> > > > remains...It is quite wonderful and yet sad at the same time
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Also deeply, deeply disturbing - especially as he has such beautiful
> >> > > bones. The idea that he's going to be buried crowned, like no other king
> >> > > since the Dark Ages, just makes it even stranger. He's already the last
> >> > > king to die in battle, the last of a great line etc etc, and now he's being
> >> > > turned into a sort of icon of kingship itself.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>