items in the catalogue of the NPG exhibition (was Proposed FAQ area)
items in the catalogue of the NPG exhibition (was Proposed FAQ area)
2013-02-27 18:35:52
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> "Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat
> them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British
> English!)
It is yes, ta ;)
> Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you
> don't want to do that.
"... because you wouldn't like me when I'm angry ..."
> Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing.
Well there's the drawing above, with the "tant le desire" motto. Can
anybody - Wednesday? - make out the lettering above well enough to see what
it says, and whether it too is in Richard's hand? The first word is "my"
and the third "of" but I can't make much more of it. If it's a label for
the boar, as "the duk of york" is a label for the falcon-and-fetterlock,
then it ought to say something like "my lord of Gloucestre's badge" but
there are too many words in it, and the second word has a long descender in
the middle.
> It's certainly a lot cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was
> made by an enemy, so I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or
> compliment, as you suggest.
I suppose - and I wish I hadn't thought of this - that it could maybe be a
pilgrim badge from a shrine of St Anthony. It's mentioned in the text as
pewter, 1" in diameter (so that little nose-ring must be very fine work),
from the collection of a Mr H Syer-Cuming who "found most of his mediaeval
hat badges and similar antiquities along the Thames foreshore" and that this
is *presumed* to be from the same source, and described as "This unexpected
and endearing variant upon Richard III's badge". I hope it *is* Richard's
badge.
> I wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.
It has more detailed commentary in the body of the text, but not for items
which weren't actually in the exhibition, so not for the "tant le desire"
fragment.
There are four copies of the catalogue on abebooks, starting at £13.22: look
for a book by Pamela Tudor-Craid and just entitled "Richard III". A copy
which is £18 includes a pull-out insert on the music used at the exhibition,
which I don't have, so if anybody buys this I'd appreciate a scan. And I
see the exhibition was actually in 1973 - the book was reprinted in 1977.
Some other interesting points from the catalogue (although really almost the
entire thing consists of interesting points):
Pamela Tudor-Craig refers to Harley as listing horses who were at grass at
Jervaulx Abbey, so I suppose this is the three "of Gervaux". If the reason
they are so described is indeed that they were at grass there, only three
miles from Middleham, then these are probably among the family's personal
horses - especially as one of them is a trotting horse belonging to "my
lady", presumably Ann.
Apart from the trotter the other two are described as "great" - a great grey
and a great bay gelding. Since the list seems to be of riding, not
agricultural animals, presumably these are "great horses" in the sense of
sizeable war or jousting horses, not large plough horses.
So we have evidence for Richard owning a large war or jousting horse
(probably a stallion, since geldings are specified as such and mares would
probably be used for breeding), who was grey. Nowadays "grey" includes
all-white horses unless they are actually albino, but since many horses in
the Harley list are described as white a horse described as grey would
probably be an iron or fleabit grey or a dapple, not a pure white. Dapples
are much commoner than iron or fleabit greys and as they get older they
usually turn mostly white, except for the shoulders and rump. [Note: a
fleabit grey is a spotted horse with really tiny spots, like little flecks.]
Good-quality horses often had some Arab blood. White Surrey could mean a
white horse belonging to somebody called Surrey but if he belonged to
Richard it might have meant or been intended to mean a White Syrian, i.e. a
white horse with Arab blood. We've got Richard owning a probably
white-*ish* great horse who was at grass near Middleham and who very likely
did have some Arab blood, so whether or not he was really referred to as
White Surrey in life and whether or not he was the horse who died with
Richard at Bosworth, Shakespeare may well have heard a description of
Richard riding the "great grey of Gervaux".
Pamela Tudor-Craig speculates about when and by whom the Beauchamp Pageant
was created. It was done after Richard became king (he's shown crowned) and
she assumes Richard himself must have commissioned it because Ann Beauchamp
didn't have control of her own money. But I would take it as possible
further evidence that Richard had effectively written his mother-in-law a
blank cheque.
Something else interesting in the catalogue is the supposed text of the
inscription on Richard's original 1496 tomb, as written down by J Nichols in
"History and Antiquties of the County of Leicester". This was written
around 1800 so he may have been going from somebody else's notes from an
inscription already lost, which might explain the error in the date (below)
and the anomaly of placing Richard on the *British* throne when he was never
king of Scotland. It's noteable that even though it calls Richard a
usurper - as the Tudors had to do, since they needed young Lizzie to be
legitimate - there is absolutely no suggestion of his killing his nephews,
and like all accounts it praises his courage, which must be unassailable,
since even his enemies agree on it.
I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possess'd the British throne.
My Country's guardian in my nephew's claim,
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came.
Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd,
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd,
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
Yet at his cost my corse this tomb obtains,
Who piusly interr'd me, and ordains
That regal honours wait a king's remains.
Th' year thirteen hundred t'was and eighty-four
The twenty-first of August, when its power
And all its rights I did to the Red Rose restore.
Reader, who'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
I suppose the original probably said some thing like "... fourteen hundred
t'was and eighty-five ... did the Red Rose revive" but the reference to the
twenty-*first* of August may be original, since Henry fiddled his own dates.
I don't know whether the bit at the end is supposed to suggest that Richard
was especially sinful, and in hell, or is just a boilerplate Catholic
reference to somebody being in Purgatory, as they thought nearly everybody
was when newly dead.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ area
> "Entreat" can mean "ask," but here it just means "treat," as in "treat
> them lovingly." (I'm hoping that "treat" is still used that way in British
> English!)
It is yes, ta ;)
> Exactly. Be good to them and love them or you'll make me angry, and you
> don't want to do that.
"... because you wouldn't like me when I'm angry ..."
> Yes. Somehow, I was expecting it to be a drawing.
Well there's the drawing above, with the "tant le desire" motto. Can
anybody - Wednesday? - make out the lettering above well enough to see what
it says, and whether it too is in Richard's hand? The first word is "my"
and the third "of" but I can't make much more of it. If it's a label for
the boar, as "the duk of york" is a label for the falcon-and-fetterlock,
then it ought to say something like "my lord of Gloucestre's badge" but
there are too many words in it, and the second word has a long descender in
the middle.
> It's certainly a lot cuter than a tusked boar! It doesn't look like it was
> made by an enemy, so I guess it must be some sort of cute joke or
> compliment, as you suggest.
I suppose - and I wish I hadn't thought of this - that it could maybe be a
pilgrim badge from a shrine of St Anthony. It's mentioned in the text as
pewter, 1" in diameter (so that little nose-ring must be very fine work),
from the collection of a Mr H Syer-Cuming who "found most of his mediaeval
hat badges and similar antiquities along the Thames foreshore" and that this
is *presumed* to be from the same source, and described as "This unexpected
and endearing variant upon Richard III's badge". I hope it *is* Richard's
badge.
> I wish that the catalogue had more detailed commentary.
It has more detailed commentary in the body of the text, but not for items
which weren't actually in the exhibition, so not for the "tant le desire"
fragment.
There are four copies of the catalogue on abebooks, starting at £13.22: look
for a book by Pamela Tudor-Craid and just entitled "Richard III". A copy
which is £18 includes a pull-out insert on the music used at the exhibition,
which I don't have, so if anybody buys this I'd appreciate a scan. And I
see the exhibition was actually in 1973 - the book was reprinted in 1977.
Some other interesting points from the catalogue (although really almost the
entire thing consists of interesting points):
Pamela Tudor-Craig refers to Harley as listing horses who were at grass at
Jervaulx Abbey, so I suppose this is the three "of Gervaux". If the reason
they are so described is indeed that they were at grass there, only three
miles from Middleham, then these are probably among the family's personal
horses - especially as one of them is a trotting horse belonging to "my
lady", presumably Ann.
Apart from the trotter the other two are described as "great" - a great grey
and a great bay gelding. Since the list seems to be of riding, not
agricultural animals, presumably these are "great horses" in the sense of
sizeable war or jousting horses, not large plough horses.
So we have evidence for Richard owning a large war or jousting horse
(probably a stallion, since geldings are specified as such and mares would
probably be used for breeding), who was grey. Nowadays "grey" includes
all-white horses unless they are actually albino, but since many horses in
the Harley list are described as white a horse described as grey would
probably be an iron or fleabit grey or a dapple, not a pure white. Dapples
are much commoner than iron or fleabit greys and as they get older they
usually turn mostly white, except for the shoulders and rump. [Note: a
fleabit grey is a spotted horse with really tiny spots, like little flecks.]
Good-quality horses often had some Arab blood. White Surrey could mean a
white horse belonging to somebody called Surrey but if he belonged to
Richard it might have meant or been intended to mean a White Syrian, i.e. a
white horse with Arab blood. We've got Richard owning a probably
white-*ish* great horse who was at grass near Middleham and who very likely
did have some Arab blood, so whether or not he was really referred to as
White Surrey in life and whether or not he was the horse who died with
Richard at Bosworth, Shakespeare may well have heard a description of
Richard riding the "great grey of Gervaux".
Pamela Tudor-Craig speculates about when and by whom the Beauchamp Pageant
was created. It was done after Richard became king (he's shown crowned) and
she assumes Richard himself must have commissioned it because Ann Beauchamp
didn't have control of her own money. But I would take it as possible
further evidence that Richard had effectively written his mother-in-law a
blank cheque.
Something else interesting in the catalogue is the supposed text of the
inscription on Richard's original 1496 tomb, as written down by J Nichols in
"History and Antiquties of the County of Leicester". This was written
around 1800 so he may have been going from somebody else's notes from an
inscription already lost, which might explain the error in the date (below)
and the anomaly of placing Richard on the *British* throne when he was never
king of Scotland. It's noteable that even though it calls Richard a
usurper - as the Tudors had to do, since they needed young Lizzie to be
legitimate - there is absolutely no suggestion of his killing his nephews,
and like all accounts it praises his courage, which must be unassailable,
since even his enemies agree on it.
I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possess'd the British throne.
My Country's guardian in my nephew's claim,
By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came.
Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd,
And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd,
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
Yet at his cost my corse this tomb obtains,
Who piusly interr'd me, and ordains
That regal honours wait a king's remains.
Th' year thirteen hundred t'was and eighty-four
The twenty-first of August, when its power
And all its rights I did to the Red Rose restore.
Reader, who'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
I suppose the original probably said some thing like "... fourteen hundred
t'was and eighty-five ... did the Red Rose revive" but the reference to the
twenty-*first* of August may be original, since Henry fiddled his own dates.
I don't know whether the bit at the end is supposed to suggest that Richard
was especially sinful, and in hell, or is just a boilerplate Catholic
reference to somebody being in Purgatory, as they thought nearly everybody
was when newly dead.
Re: items in the catalogue of the NPG exhibition (was Proposed FAQ a
2013-02-27 23:16:52
Claire M Jordan wrote:
[snip]
> Good-quality horses often had some Arab blood. White Surrey could mean a white horse belonging to somebody called Surrey but if he belonged to Richard it might have meant or been intended to mean a White Syrian, i.e. a white horse with Arab blood. [snip]
Carol responds:
Of course, since he's not on the list and doesn't (IIRC) appear in any source before Shakespeare's play (which, of course, is not a source), I've always thought that he was imaginary. But then I also thought that Surrey must have some reference to the county!
Claire wrote:
> Something else interesting in the catalogue is the supposed text of the inscription on Richard's original 1496 tomb, as written down by J Nichols in "History and Antiquties of the County of Leicester". This was written around 1800 so he may have been going from somebody else's notes from an inscription already lost, which might explain the error in the date (below) and the anomaly of placing Richard on the *British* throne when he was never king of Scotland. It's noteable that even though it calls Richard a usurper - as the Tudors had to do, since they needed young Lizzie to be legitimate - there is absolutely no suggestion of his killing his nephews, and like all accounts it praises his courage, which must be unassailable, since even his enemies agree on it.
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possess'd the British throne.
> My Country's guardian in my nephew's claim,
> By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came.
> Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd,
> And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd,
> My English left me in the luckless field,
> Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> Yet at his cost my corse this tomb obtains,
> Who piusly interr'd me, and ordains
> That regal honours wait a king's remains.
> Th' year thirteen hundred t'was and eighty-four
> The twenty-first of August, when its power
> And all its rights I did to the Red Rose restore.
> Reader, who'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
>
> I suppose the original probably said some thing like "... fourteen hundred t'was and eighty-five ... did the Red Rose revive" but the reference to the twenty-*first* of August may be original, since Henry fiddled his own dates.
>
> I don't know whether the bit at the end is supposed to suggest that Richard was especially sinful, and in hell, or is just a boilerplate Catholic reference to somebody being in Purgatory, as they thought nearly everybody was when newly dead.
Carol responds:
It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck, which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style caused it to be regarded for a long time as a fabrication, but John Ashdown-Hill proves that it was genuine and provides a more faithful free-verse translation:
I, here, whom the earth encloses under various coloured marble,
Was justly called Richard the Third.
I was Protector of my country, an uncle ruling on behalf of his nephew.
I held the British kingdoms in trust, [although] they were disunited. Then for just sixty days less two,
And two summers, I held my sceptres.
Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,
I succumbed to you, King Henry VII.
But you yourself, piously, at your expense, thus honoured my bones
And caused a former king to be revered with the honour of a king
When [in] twice five years less four
Three hundred five-year periods of our salvation had passed.
And eleven days before the Kalends of September
I surrendered to the red rose the power it desired.
Whoever you are, pray for my offences,
That my punishment may be lessened by your prayers.
Ashdown-Hill, John (2010-12-26). The Last Days of Richard III (Kindle Locations 2775-2785). The History Press. Kindle Edition.
The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights didn't desert him, and he didn't succumb to Henry Tudor (only to the traitor Stanley's men), and Henry wasn't king at the time. The epitaph also has Richard piously honoring Richard's bones at his own expense, a very Henrylike touch. But notice that this more accurate translaion presents Richard as *justly* king, not a usurper. (Why? According to J A-H, because Perkin Warbeck was claiming the throne, and if Richard held the throne justly without having usurped it, Perkin's claim was invalid. The claims, as J A-H points out, are mutually contradictory. (Too bad Henry couldn't reinstitute Titulus Regius and resurrect the destroyed copies, but that would have made his wife illegitimate.) Also, the line at the end about praying for Richard's offenses (unspecified in the verse) is just conventional Catholicism and part of Henry's "piety" in honoring a fallen enemy (however belatedly) with a proper tomb.
Anyway, Ashdown-Hill's discussion is much more detailed than this summary indicates, and he has notes for some of the more difficult lines (like the one that states the date of Richard's death in such complex terms).
If you haven't already read the book, grab the new edition that's just coming out to incorporate revisions based on the finding of Richard's skeleton. He also speculates about whether the epitaph was part of the tomb or a separate wooden tablet.
Carol
[snip]
> Good-quality horses often had some Arab blood. White Surrey could mean a white horse belonging to somebody called Surrey but if he belonged to Richard it might have meant or been intended to mean a White Syrian, i.e. a white horse with Arab blood. [snip]
Carol responds:
Of course, since he's not on the list and doesn't (IIRC) appear in any source before Shakespeare's play (which, of course, is not a source), I've always thought that he was imaginary. But then I also thought that Surrey must have some reference to the county!
Claire wrote:
> Something else interesting in the catalogue is the supposed text of the inscription on Richard's original 1496 tomb, as written down by J Nichols in "History and Antiquties of the County of Leicester". This was written around 1800 so he may have been going from somebody else's notes from an inscription already lost, which might explain the error in the date (below) and the anomaly of placing Richard on the *British* throne when he was never king of Scotland. It's noteable that even though it calls Richard a usurper - as the Tudors had to do, since they needed young Lizzie to be legitimate - there is absolutely no suggestion of his killing his nephews, and like all accounts it praises his courage, which must be unassailable, since even his enemies agree on it.
>
> I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
> Richard the Third, possess'd the British throne.
> My Country's guardian in my nephew's claim,
> By trust betray'd I to the kingdom came.
> Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign'd,
> And bravely strove in fight, but unsustain'd,
> My English left me in the luckless field,
> Where I to Henry's arms was forc'd to yield.
> Yet at his cost my corse this tomb obtains,
> Who piusly interr'd me, and ordains
> That regal honours wait a king's remains.
> Th' year thirteen hundred t'was and eighty-four
> The twenty-first of August, when its power
> And all its rights I did to the Red Rose restore.
> Reader, who'er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
> T'atone my crimes, and ease my pains below.
>
> I suppose the original probably said some thing like "... fourteen hundred t'was and eighty-five ... did the Red Rose revive" but the reference to the twenty-*first* of August may be original, since Henry fiddled his own dates.
>
> I don't know whether the bit at the end is supposed to suggest that Richard was especially sinful, and in hell, or is just a boilerplate Catholic reference to somebody being in Purgatory, as they thought nearly everybody was when newly dead.
Carol responds:
It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck, which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style caused it to be regarded for a long time as a fabrication, but John Ashdown-Hill proves that it was genuine and provides a more faithful free-verse translation:
I, here, whom the earth encloses under various coloured marble,
Was justly called Richard the Third.
I was Protector of my country, an uncle ruling on behalf of his nephew.
I held the British kingdoms in trust, [although] they were disunited. Then for just sixty days less two,
And two summers, I held my sceptres.
Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,
I succumbed to you, King Henry VII.
But you yourself, piously, at your expense, thus honoured my bones
And caused a former king to be revered with the honour of a king
When [in] twice five years less four
Three hundred five-year periods of our salvation had passed.
And eleven days before the Kalends of September
I surrendered to the red rose the power it desired.
Whoever you are, pray for my offences,
That my punishment may be lessened by your prayers.
Ashdown-Hill, John (2010-12-26). The Last Days of Richard III (Kindle Locations 2775-2785). The History Press. Kindle Edition.
The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights didn't desert him, and he didn't succumb to Henry Tudor (only to the traitor Stanley's men), and Henry wasn't king at the time. The epitaph also has Richard piously honoring Richard's bones at his own expense, a very Henrylike touch. But notice that this more accurate translaion presents Richard as *justly* king, not a usurper. (Why? According to J A-H, because Perkin Warbeck was claiming the throne, and if Richard held the throne justly without having usurped it, Perkin's claim was invalid. The claims, as J A-H points out, are mutually contradictory. (Too bad Henry couldn't reinstitute Titulus Regius and resurrect the destroyed copies, but that would have made his wife illegitimate.) Also, the line at the end about praying for Richard's offenses (unspecified in the verse) is just conventional Catholicism and part of Henry's "piety" in honoring a fallen enemy (however belatedly) with a proper tomb.
Anyway, Ashdown-Hill's discussion is much more detailed than this summary indicates, and he has notes for some of the more difficult lines (like the one that states the date of Richard's death in such complex terms).
If you haven't already read the book, grab the new edition that's just coming out to incorporate revisions based on the finding of Richard's skeleton. He also speculates about whether the epitaph was part of the tomb or a separate wooden tablet.
Carol
Re: items in the catalogue of the NPG exhibition (was Proposed FAQ a
2013-02-27 23:59:32
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: items in the catalogue of the NPG
exhibition (was Proposed FAQ area)
> Of course, since he's not on the list
It's only a list of the horses *at grass*, though.
> and doesn't (IIRC) appear in any source before Shakespeare's play (which,
> of course, is not a source), I've always thought that he was imaginary.
> But then I also thought that Surrey must have some reference to the
> county!
Could be. But we can at least see from the list that Richard had a grey
(probably = off-white, probably stallion) war-horse apparently kept near
Middleham, even though the name Shakespeare gives him may well be imaginary.
[But not *necessarily* imaginary, because he was close enough in time that
that sort of detail might still have been current by oral transmission.]
> It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck,
> which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough
> iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary
> restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style
7th or 17th?
> The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights
> didn't desert him,
Except insofar as he ended up more or less on his own because he'd got ahead
of the main party, as I understand it.
> The epitaph also has Richard piously honoring Richard's bones at his own
> expense, a very Henrylike touch.
Reasonably true, though - I suppose it was nice of him to make the effort,
even if it was a bit late.
> But notice that this more accurate translaion presents Richard as *justly*
> king, not a usurper.
Yes, and again, absolutely no accusation of murder, or anything really to
his discredit, other than in the general sense that the Tudors denied the
whole white rose claim.
> (Why? According to J A-H, because Perkin Warbeck was claiming the throne,
> and if Richard held the throne justly without having usurped it, Perkin's
> claim was invalid. The claims, as J A-H points out, are mutually
> contradictory. (Too bad Henry couldn't reinstitute Titulus Regius and
> resurrect the destroyed copies, but that would have made his wife
> illegitimate.)
If he was going to this much trouble, it's more evidence that for whatever
reason he really *couldn't* say "Perkin Warbeck isn't one of the missing
boys because I know they are dead." And if he had any evidence that they
were dead, what reason could he have had not to say so, but instead to take
this risky step of affirming Richard's claim? After all, even if he had
killed them hismelf there was nothing to stop him blaming Richard, or a sad
fever. The implication must be, again, that he knew or suspected they were
alive.
> Also, the line at the end about praying for Richard's offenses
> (unspecified in the verse) is just conventional Catholicism
That's what I suspected. It sounds sinister to modern and non-Catholic
ears, but it's really just scattergun Catholic guilt - everybody's an
unworthy sinner, unless they're a saint. [Most of my family are Catholics,]
> If you haven't already read the book, grab the new edition that's just
> coming out to incorporate revisions based on the finding of Richard's
> skeleton.
I will do, if it's not too dear. He seems like a really nice bloke - and
iirc living proof that a slightly gappy smile is dead cute.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: items in the catalogue of the NPG
exhibition (was Proposed FAQ area)
> Of course, since he's not on the list
It's only a list of the horses *at grass*, though.
> and doesn't (IIRC) appear in any source before Shakespeare's play (which,
> of course, is not a source), I've always thought that he was imaginary.
> But then I also thought that Surrey must have some reference to the
> county!
Could be. But we can at least see from the list that Richard had a grey
(probably = off-white, probably stallion) war-horse apparently kept near
Middleham, even though the name Shakespeare gives him may well be imaginary.
[But not *necessarily* imaginary, because he was close enough in time that
that sort of detail might still have been current by oral transmission.]
> It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck,
> which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough
> iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary
> restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style
7th or 17th?
> The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights
> didn't desert him,
Except insofar as he ended up more or less on his own because he'd got ahead
of the main party, as I understand it.
> The epitaph also has Richard piously honoring Richard's bones at his own
> expense, a very Henrylike touch.
Reasonably true, though - I suppose it was nice of him to make the effort,
even if it was a bit late.
> But notice that this more accurate translaion presents Richard as *justly*
> king, not a usurper.
Yes, and again, absolutely no accusation of murder, or anything really to
his discredit, other than in the general sense that the Tudors denied the
whole white rose claim.
> (Why? According to J A-H, because Perkin Warbeck was claiming the throne,
> and if Richard held the throne justly without having usurped it, Perkin's
> claim was invalid. The claims, as J A-H points out, are mutually
> contradictory. (Too bad Henry couldn't reinstitute Titulus Regius and
> resurrect the destroyed copies, but that would have made his wife
> illegitimate.)
If he was going to this much trouble, it's more evidence that for whatever
reason he really *couldn't* say "Perkin Warbeck isn't one of the missing
boys because I know they are dead." And if he had any evidence that they
were dead, what reason could he have had not to say so, but instead to take
this risky step of affirming Richard's claim? After all, even if he had
killed them hismelf there was nothing to stop him blaming Richard, or a sad
fever. The implication must be, again, that he knew or suspected they were
alive.
> Also, the line at the end about praying for Richard's offenses
> (unspecified in the verse) is just conventional Catholicism
That's what I suspected. It sounds sinister to modern and non-Catholic
ears, but it's really just scattergun Catholic guilt - everybody's an
unworthy sinner, unless they're a saint. [Most of my family are Catholics,]
> If you haven't already read the book, grab the new edition that's just
> coming out to incorporate revisions based on the finding of Richard's
> skeleton.
I will do, if it's not too dear. He seems like a really nice bloke - and
iirc living proof that a slightly gappy smile is dead cute.
Re: items in the catalogue of the NPG exhibition (was Proposed FAQ a
2013-02-28 15:16:27
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Carol earlier:
> > It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck, which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style
Claire responded:
> 7th or 17th?
Carol responds:
Oops. As you've guessed, I meant seventeenth. He hadn't been born in the seventh century, when the English spoke Anglo-Saxon.
Carol earlier:
> > The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights didn't desert him,
Claire responded:
> Except insofar as he ended up more or less on his own because he'd got ahead of the main party, as I understand it.
Carol again:
Which Tudor sources interpret to mean that he fought alone because his men were disloyal while, in fact, his knights, cut off from him, were fighting to the death, presumably to get to him and try to save him, rather than running away. Most of the known deaths at Bosworth were on Richard's side, IIRC, and they included many of his household knights, as well as Brackenbury, who had led a household contingent.
Carol
Carol earlier:
> > It appears to be a bad translation of the Latin text that appears in Buck, which of course, did not originally rhyme and didn't have that very rough iambic pentameter rhythm. (Both the rhyme and meter put unnecessary restrictions on the translation). The obviously seventh-century style
Claire responded:
> 7th or 17th?
Carol responds:
Oops. As you've guessed, I meant seventeenth. He hadn't been born in the seventh century, when the English spoke Anglo-Saxon.
Carol earlier:
> > The part about Bosworth is, of course, Tudor propaganda. Richard's knights didn't desert him,
Claire responded:
> Except insofar as he ended up more or less on his own because he'd got ahead of the main party, as I understand it.
Carol again:
Which Tudor sources interpret to mean that he fought alone because his men were disloyal while, in fact, his knights, cut off from him, were fighting to the death, presumably to get to him and try to save him, rather than running away. Most of the known deaths at Bosworth were on Richard's side, IIRC, and they included many of his household knights, as well as Brackenbury, who had led a household contingent.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.