Psychologists analyze Richard

Here's a very interesting report by psychologists analyzing Richard, taking into account such traits as his loyalty, piety, strong sense of right and wrong, and belief in the legal process. They also conclude that he was unlikely to have killed his nephews and much more likely to have moved them to a safe, secret place:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/richard-iii-just-craved-security/story-fnb64oi6-1226589466351

The psychologists spent eighteen months studying the records of his reign before coming up with this analysis.

I hope they publish their findings, which are bad news for the Tudorites.

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> Here's a very interesting report by psychologists analyzing Richard, taking into account such traits as his loyalty, piety, strong sense of right and wrong, and belief in the legal process. They also conclude that he was unlikely to have killed his nephews and much more likely to have moved them to a safe, secret place:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/richard-iii-just-craved-security/story-fnb64oi6-1226589466351

[snip}

If that link takes you to a login page, try accessing it from here:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Richard+III+psychologist+insecure&oq=Richard+III+psychologist+insecure&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i400.8268.31465.0.35227.39.5.3.31.34.0.144.671.0j5.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.ORdknbu-TcY

or do a Google search for "Richard III psychologist insecure" (no quotes) which is how I found this page. Then click on the article "Richard III 'Just Craved Security.'"

It's short and worth reading. I'd also like to see people's reactions.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> or do a Google search for "Richard III psychologist insecure" (no quotes)
> which is how I found this page. Then click on the article "Richard III
> 'Just Craved Security.'"

That doesn't work either - you can get at the article, but after a few
seconds it greys out and is replaced by a demand for a subscription fee.
But I managed to dive in, do Ctrl A, Ctrl C before the Login dialogue came
up and then pasted it into a file as plain text. Here it is so others can
read it:

***********

The Times UK

Richard III 'just craved security' by: Sian Griffiths From: The Sunday Times
(UK) March 04, 2013 12:00AM

RICHARD III, the medieval king portrayed as a murderous Machiavellian
hunchback, may have suffered from insecurity, psychologists believe.

The new research follows the authentication last month of his bones, found
beneath a council car park in Leicester, 140km northwest of London

Mark Lansdale and Julian Boon, a forensic psychologist, have spent 18 months
analysing records from the period spanning the king's life.

Their research, commissioned by the Richard III Society, indicates that the
king has been unfairly maligned, and concludes he showed few signs of the
traits psychologists would use to identify psychopaths today - including
narcissism, deviousness and lack of empathy in close relationships.

Instead, it argues, Richard III exhibited signs of suffering from a common
psychological syndrome known as "intolerance to uncertainty".

"This syndrome is associated with a need to seek security following an
insecure childhood, as Richard had," said Professor Lansdale. "It is
associated with a number of positive aspects of personality, including a
strong sense of right and wrong, piety, loyalty to trusted colleagues and a
belief in legal processes - all exhibited by Richard."

The pair say their analysis indicates Richard III was unlikely to have
murdered his two nephews, one of whom was to have taken the throne, in the
Tower. They argue he would have been "more likely to have removed them to a
secret place of safety".

Richard seized the throne in 1483 but was killed two years later by an army
led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII.


***********

It seems reasonable to me. It goes with his inventing an idea of military
discipline which was not to be re-discovered for 200+ years, and being
willing to e.g. execute his own men if they molested civilians. Where does
the story come from - and this is something I've known for so long I've
completely forgotten where I learned it because I learned it circa 40 years
ago - that when he marched through Scotland he burned villages along the
way, as was standard military practice, but he was unique in warning the
villagers in advance and giving them time to evacuate?

Thanks Carol for the link! Very interesting and just what a lot of us suspected. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a very interesting report by psychologists analyzing Richard, taking into account such traits as his loyalty, piety, strong sense of right and wrong, and belief in the legal process. They also conclude that he was unlikely to have killed his nephews and much more likely to have moved them to a safe, secret place:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/richard-iii-just-craved-security/story-fnb64oi6-1226589466351
>
> The psychologists spent eighteen months studying the records of his reign before coming up with this analysis.
>
> I hope they publish their findings, which are bad news for the Tudorites.
>
> Carol
>

Hello, Fear not I am sure there will be more forthcoming from Professor Mark Lansdale University of Leicester.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > or do a Google search for "Richard III psychologist insecure" (no quotes)
> > which is how I found this page. Then click on the article "Richard III
> > 'Just Craved Security.'"
>
> That doesn't work either - you can get at the article, but after a few
> seconds it greys out and is replaced by a demand for a subscription fee.
> But I managed to dive in, do Ctrl A, Ctrl C before the Login dialogue came
> up and then pasted it into a file as plain text. Here it is so others can
> read it:
>
> ***********
>
> The Times UK
>
> Richard III 'just craved security' by: Sian Griffiths From: The Sunday Times
> (UK) March 04, 2013 12:00AM
>
> RICHARD III, the medieval king portrayed as a murderous Machiavellian
> hunchback, may have suffered from insecurity, psychologists believe.
>
> The new research follows the authentication last month of his bones, found
> beneath a council car park in Leicester, 140km northwest of London
>
> Mark Lansdale and Julian Boon, a forensic psychologist, have spent 18 months
> analysing records from the period spanning the king's life.
>
> Their research, commissioned by the Richard III Society, indicates that the
> king has been unfairly maligned, and concludes he showed few signs of the
> traits psychologists would use to identify psychopaths today - including
> narcissism, deviousness and lack of empathy in close relationships.
>
> Instead, it argues, Richard III exhibited signs of suffering from a common
> psychological syndrome known as "intolerance to uncertainty".
>
> "This syndrome is associated with a need to seek security following an
> insecure childhood, as Richard had," said Professor Lansdale. "It is
> associated with a number of positive aspects of personality, including a
> strong sense of right and wrong, piety, loyalty to trusted colleagues and a
> belief in legal processes - all exhibited by Richard."
>
> The pair say their analysis indicates Richard III was unlikely to have
> murdered his two nephews, one of whom was to have taken the throne, in the
> Tower. They argue he would have been "more likely to have removed them to a
> secret place of safety".
>
> Richard seized the throne in 1483 but was killed two years later by an army
> led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII.
>
>
> ***********
>
> It seems reasonable to me. It goes with his inventing an idea of military
> discipline which was not to be re-discovered for 200+ years, and being
> willing to e.g. execute his own men if they molested civilians. Where does
> the story come from - and this is something I've known for so long I've
> completely forgotten where I learned it because I learned it circa 40 years
> ago - that when he marched through Scotland he burned villages along the
> way, as was standard military practice, but he was unique in warning the
> villagers in advance and giving them time to evacuate?
>

Thirty plus years of working with Psychologists make me somewhat 'Doubtful' of their conclusion.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013, 21:29
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>
>Carol earlier:
>>
>> Here's a very interesting report by psychologists analyzing Richard, taking into account such traits as his loyalty, piety, strong sense of right and wrong, and belief in the legal process. They also conclude that he was unlikely to have killed his nephews and much more likely to have moved them to a safe, secret place:
>>
>> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/richard-iii-just-craved-security/story-fnb64oi6-1226589466351
>
>[snip}
>
>If that link takes you to a login page, try accessing it from here:
>
>https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Richard+III+psychologist+insecure&oq=Richard+III+psychologist+insecure&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i400.8268.31465.0.35227.39.5.3.31.34.0.144.671.0j5.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.ORdknbu-TcY
>
>or do a Google search for "Richard III psychologist insecure" (no quotes) which is how I found this page. Then click on the article "Richard III 'Just Craved Security.'"
>
>It's short and worth reading. I'd also like to see people's reactions.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I think I have read somewhere, and I can't remember where, that Richard took the city of Edinburgh without there being any loss of life.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > or do a Google search for "Richard III psychologist insecure" (no quotes)
> > which is how I found this page. Then click on the article "Richard III
> > 'Just Craved Security.'"
>
> That doesn't work either - you can get at the article, but after a few
> seconds it greys out and is replaced by a demand for a subscription fee.
> But I managed to dive in, do Ctrl A, Ctrl C before the Login dialogue came
> up and then pasted it into a file as plain text. Here it is so others can
> read it:
>
> ***********
>
> The Times UK
>
> Richard III 'just craved security' by: Sian Griffiths From: The Sunday Times
> (UK) March 04, 2013 12:00AM
>
> RICHARD III, the medieval king portrayed as a murderous Machiavellian
> hunchback, may have suffered from insecurity, psychologists believe.
>
> The new research follows the authentication last month of his bones, found
> beneath a council car park in Leicester, 140km northwest of London
>
> Mark Lansdale and Julian Boon, a forensic psychologist, have spent 18 months
> analysing records from the period spanning the king's life.
>
> Their research, commissioned by the Richard III Society, indicates that the
> king has been unfairly maligned, and concludes he showed few signs of the
> traits psychologists would use to identify psychopaths today - including
> narcissism, deviousness and lack of empathy in close relationships.
>
> Instead, it argues, Richard III exhibited signs of suffering from a common
> psychological syndrome known as "intolerance to uncertainty".
>
> "This syndrome is associated with a need to seek security following an
> insecure childhood, as Richard had," said Professor Lansdale. "It is
> associated with a number of positive aspects of personality, including a
> strong sense of right and wrong, piety, loyalty to trusted colleagues and a
> belief in legal processes - all exhibited by Richard."
>
> The pair say their analysis indicates Richard III was unlikely to have
> murdered his two nephews, one of whom was to have taken the throne, in the
> Tower. They argue he would have been "more likely to have removed them to a
> secret place of safety".
>
> Richard seized the throne in 1483 but was killed two years later by an army
> led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII.
>
>
> ***********
>
> It seems reasonable to me. It goes with his inventing an idea of military
> discipline which was not to be re-discovered for 200+ years, and being
> willing to e.g. execute his own men if they molested civilians. Where does
> the story come from - and this is something I've known for so long I've
> completely forgotten where I learned it because I learned it circa 40 years
> ago - that when he marched through Scotland he burned villages along the
> way, as was standard military practice, but he was unique in warning the
> villagers in advance and giving them time to evacuate?
>

Arthur wrote:
>
> Thirty plus years of working with Psychologists make me somewhat 'Doubtful' of their conclusion.

Carol responds:

Their findings were based on an eighteen-month study of the records of Richard's life and reign, not just the chronicles but Richard's own letters, legislation, and other actions.

See the article that I'm about to post to our Files.

Personally, I'm much more doubtful of the conclusions of Wright and Tanner in the 1930s concerning the identity of those bones in the urn.

Carol

Mary wrote:
>
> I think I have read somewhere, and I can't remember where, that Richard took the city of Edinburgh without there being any loss of life.

Carol responds:

It's in Kendall, for one. I don't recall the primary source offhand.

Carol

   The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have been a major factor] She then killed another lady - Take  it from an Old Stager, Prediction of Deeds or Misdeeds can be so difficult even when able to test & re-test, Six Hundred Years later, when the subjects OWN life can be at risk? Witness the 'Zito Trust'.

  Regarding the Urn or Urns: My 'Namesake' [No Relation] Did NOT have this MARVEL of D.N.A. we need to push for it!! Who  knows. If it DOES work then more 'Informative' than so called 'Primary sources' that might well have been doctored. Sorry to 'Disagree'!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 15:45
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> Thirty plus years of working with Psychologists make me somewhat 'Doubtful' of their conclusion.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Their findings were based on an eighteen-month study of the records of Richard's life and reign, not just the chronicles but Richard's own letters, legislation, and other actions.
>
>See the article that I'm about to post to our Files.
>
>Personally, I'm much more doubtful of the conclusions of Wright and Tanner in the 1930s concerning the identity of those bones in the urn.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from
> her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have
> been a major factor] She then killed another lady -

But this wasn't somebody who appeared normal and then did terrible deeds -
far from it. She had murdered her own mother and she had actually been to
both the hospital and the police a few hopurs before the second killing and
told them "I feel I am about to kill again", but they turned her away. This
wasn't about not being able to tell that somebody was loopy, but about not
having enough high security psychiatric beds as a result of the care in the
community movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which abolished the majority of
psychiatric places out of a misguided belief that all psychiatric patients
were better off in normal housing.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>    The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have been a major factor] She then killed another lady - Take  it from an Old Stager, Prediction of Deeds or Misdeeds can be so difficult even when able to test & re-test, Six Hundred Years later, when the subjects OWN life can be at risk? Witness the 'Zito Trust'.
>
>   Regarding the Urn or Urns: My 'Namesake' [No Relation] Did NOT have this MARVEL of D.N.A. we need to push for it!! Who  knows. If it DOES work then more 'Informative' than so called 'Primary sources' that might well have been doctored. Sorry to 'Disagree'!!

Carol responds:

Arthur, primary sources (parliamentary records, privy purse expenses, manuscript letters) etc. can't be doctored. Chronicles, of course, must be read for bias and are not primary sources in the same sense. The chief problem with, say, Mancini, Rous, and the Croyland chronicler, other than the evident bias and unreliable informants, is that they're in Latin, so they're subject to errors in translation. But no such problem occurs with, say, the Harleian manuscripts or the York Records.

These psychologists would read such documents as Richard's laws, his provisions for the widows of traitors, his letters to Bishop Russell about Buckingham's treachery or Thomas Lynom's wish to marry Mistress Shore, or his provision for a proper burial for the Towton dead, and analyze him from those, not from the hostile and sometimes inaccurate memories of the Croyland chronicler or the rumors passed on to Mancini by his informants. There's also the personal testimony of those who saw and interacted with Richard, such Bishop Langton, Archibald Whitelaw, von Poppelau, and even the turncoat Rous.

I certainly agree with you that DNA research is crucial (and will ultimately help to resolve the mystery of his nephews--the sooner, the better), but DNA won't help us to unravel the possibly more important mystery of Richard's personality--who he was, why he acted as he did, why some people were so attracted to him and others (who perhaps knew him less well) feared him. Why did he make the mistakes he made? Why did he behave so generously to some of his enemies? Would the man we know him to be through those undoctored and mercifully preserved primary sources--as important, as, say, the private correspondence of Winston Churchill would be in a biography of that statesman--really have ordered the murder of his nephews? If so, why on earth would he have acted contrary to his loyalty to his brother, contrary to his nature as revealed in those documents, contrary to the will of God, contrary to his own interest?

So, yes, by all means, let's examine those bones in the urn. But let's not deny the importance of historical documents, without which there can be neither biography nor history. There's more, much more, to Richard III than whether he killed his nephews. But until that mystery is resolved, many people will refuse to recognize that Richard was working for the good of the people of England, rich and poor, using every means at his disposal to better the lot of his subjects until fate took from him his wife and son and the treachery of a few nobles lost him his life, his kingdom, and his reputation.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> If so, why on earth would he have acted contrary to his loyalty to his
> brother, contrary to his nature as revealed in those documents, contrary
> to the will of God, contrary to his own interest?

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, possibly because he regarded them not
as his brother's children but as Woodvilles, and he hated the Woodvilles.
It's possible to think of reasons why he could possibly have killed them ,
even though it would have been very out of character.

But it always cones back to, if they had died, anywhere in Richard's
kingdom, which became Henry Tudor's kingdom, it's extremely unlikely that
Henry would not have found out that they were dead. And if he knew they
were dead there's really no credible reason why he wouldn't have said so,
and put an end to the waves of uprisings in their name which plagued his
reign. If he didn't say they were dead, it was because he knew or strongly
suspected that they weren't.

  Believe me a large number if not the majority of those who passed through my forensic wards had NOT had any history of killing until discovered or confessed. 

   Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger, had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers', was a Bereaved Man, was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.

   He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.

  Despite the considerable experience of those professionals involved, a great many errors 
have been made over the years.

 I have 'Lifted the following. from Wikipaedia.

Notable patients of Broadmoor Hospital - past and present
* Antony Baekeland, grandson of Leo Baekeland, after his trial for stabbing his mother to death.[24]
* Ian Ball, who attempted to kidnap Princess Anne in 1974
* William Rutherford Benn, father of Margaret Rutherford
* Ian Brady
* Charles Bronson
* Sharon Carr, who stabbed her first victim Katie Rackliff when she was just 12
* David Copeland
* Richard Dadd
* Gregory Davis
* Ibrahim Eidarous, alleged member of al-Jihad[25]
* Kenneth Erskine
* June and Jennifer Gibbons
* Daniel Gonzalez
* James Kelly, convicted of killing his wife, suspected of beingJack the Ripper, his memoirs place his whereabouts around other unsolved murders in the UK and the United States. * Ronald Kray
* Thomas John Ley
* Robert Maudsley
* Roderick McLean
* Dr. William Chester Minor, known as The Surgeon of Crowthorne
* Daniel M'Naghten
* Robert Napper
* Edward Oxford
* Nicky Reilly[26]
* John Straffen
* Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper
* Roy Shaw
* Ronald True
* Graham Young, released by hospital as "fully recovered", and who later poisoned dozens of people, two fatally. Jailed aged 14 (youngest prisoner detained there since 1885).

  All the above & MUCH more, have convinced me Richard was a more complex person than some Ricardians appear to believe, However I still feel EVEN IF he did acts which we cannot but be dismayed at, his reasons may have been good, if NOT the acts themselves.Understandable in the circumstances.

I have tried NOT to shout too much!!

Kind Regards,

 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:43
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:02 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from
>> her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have
>> been a major factor] She then killed another lady -
>
>But this wasn't somebody who appeared normal and then did terrible deeds -
>far from it. She had murdered her own mother and she had actually been to
>both the hospital and the police a few hopurs before the second killing and
>told them "I feel I am about to kill again", but they turned her away. This
>wasn't about not being able to tell that somebody was loopy, but about not
>having enough high security psychiatric beds as a result of the care in the
>community movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which abolished the majority of
>psychiatric places out of a misguided belief that all psychiatric patients
>were better off in normal housing.
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill
> man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'.

We don't actually know that Henry VI's death was supicious, just that he
apparently died from a blow to the base of his skull. He suffered from
porphyria, a disease whose pathology includes sudden collapses, and he had a
family history of abnormally thin skulls among his close relatives. He may
have been done in, but it's also perfectly possible he passed out, fell and
hit his head on the stone steps they used so much.

> Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.

Contemporary accounts say he was killed in the battle - nothing mysterious
or deserving of quotes. You might as well say Richard "died" at Bosworth.

  Please believe I DO feel that on the 'Balance of Probabilities' Richard was an Overall Good King.
This is witnessed by his ACTS towards the people.

  In the age & situation in which he lived even if he had supported the claim of his Nephew[s] His personal safety might still have been threatened, NOT just from Henry Richmond but certainly from the Woodvilles.

  Many of us have [Without our lives being threatened] experienced situations were we 'Could have done much better' had not the powers of the 'Spoilers' been ever present!!

  I DO enjoy your posts & your scholarship.

  D.N.A. & Forensic Medicine have continued to 'Fascinate me in Retirement', 
I have felt for many years that the events in the Tower circa 1483/84/85 may yet reveal a series of events that can surprise. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:38
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>>
>>    The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have been a major factor] She then killed another lady - Take  it from an Old Stager, Prediction of Deeds or Misdeeds can be so difficult even when able to test & re-test, Six Hundred Years later, when the subjects OWN life can be at risk? Witness the 'Zito Trust'.
>>
>>   Regarding the Urn or Urns: My 'Namesake' [No Relation] Did NOT have this MARVEL of D.N.A. we need to push for it!! Who  knows. If it DOES work then more 'Informative' than so called 'Primary sources' that might well have been doctored. Sorry to 'Disagree'!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Arthur, primary sources (parliamentary records, privy purse expenses, manuscript letters) etc. can't be doctored. Chronicles, of course, must be read for bias and are not primary sources in the same sense. The chief problem with, say, Mancini, Rous, and the Croyland chronicler, other than the evident bias and unreliable informants, is that they're in Latin, so they're subject to errors in translation. But no such problem occurs with, say, the Harleian manuscripts or the York Records.
>
>These psychologists would read such documents as Richard's laws, his provisions for the widows of traitors, his letters to Bishop Russell about Buckingham's treachery or Thomas Lynom's wish to marry Mistress Shore, or his provision for a proper burial for the Towton dead, and analyze him from those, not from the hostile and sometimes inaccurate memories of the Croyland chronicler or the rumors passed on to Mancini by his informants. There's also the personal testimony of those who saw and interacted with Richard, such Bishop Langton, Archibald Whitelaw, von Poppelau, and even the turncoat Rous.
>
>I certainly agree with you that DNA research is crucial (and will ultimately help to resolve the mystery of his nephews--the sooner, the better), but DNA won't help us to unravel the possibly more important mystery of Richard's personality--who he was, why he acted as he did, why some people were so attracted to him and others (who perhaps knew him less well) feared him. Why did he make the mistakes he made? Why did he behave so generously to some of his enemies? Would the man we know him to be through those undoctored and mercifully preserved primary sources--as important, as, say, the private correspondence of Winston Churchill would be in a biography of that statesman--really have ordered the murder of his nephews? If so, why on earth would he have acted contrary to his loyalty to his brother, contrary to his nature as revealed in those documents, contrary to the will of God, contrary to his own interest?
>
>So, yes, by all means, let's examine those bones in the urn. But let's not deny the importance of historical documents, without which there can be neither biography nor history. There's more, much more, to Richard III than whether he killed his nephews. But until that mystery is resolved, many people will refuse to recognize that Richard was working for the good of the people of England, rich and poor, using every means at his disposal to better the lot of his subjects until fate took from him his wife and son and the treachery of a few nobles lost him his life, his kingdom, and his reputation.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>
>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>


You're forgetting, though, that neither of those decisions was Richard's call, and that he was an 18-year-old at the time. An unusually experienced 18-year-old, yes, but an 18-year-old nonetheless!

Still, I've always wondered to what extent the death of Henry VI in particular might have affected him. (If indeed it was suspicious - and, to me, the timing definitely is pretty suspicious...) No matter how devoted to his elder brother, Richard must have understood what a terrible thing it was, IF Henry was killed. At the very least it would have sunk in later on.

I wonder if Henry's memory haunted him and whether his later preoccupation with justice might have had just a little to do with what happened back then. And he did have Henry reburied, after all...

Arthur wrote:
>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,

Carol responds:

No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"

Arthur:
had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',

Carol again:

Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.

Arthur:
was a Bereaved Man,

Carol:

Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement

Arthur:
was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.

Carol:
No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.

Arthur:
Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.

Carol:

Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.

Arthur:
>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]

Carol responds:

It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.

As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.

Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.

Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.

Carol

Claire, 
Re Post :-  He suffered from porphyria, a disease whose pathology includes sudden collapses.

I understand it was 'Schizophrenia' taken from his French Grandfather. 

Porphyria affected George III and appeared [As I understand it] as a 'Later' effect of Royal inbreeding.

I cannot dispute regarding Edward's demise, perhaps the non-fiction & fiction [& The Bard.] have mislead me.

Kind Regards,

 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 22:50
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:24 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill
>> man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'.
>
>We don't actually know that Henry VI's death was supicious, just that he
>apparently died from a blow to the base of his skull. He suffered from
>porphyria, a disease whose pathology includes sudden collapses, and he had a
>family history of abnormally thin skulls among his close relatives. He may
>have been done in, but it's also perfectly possible he passed out, fell and
>hit his head on the stone steps they used so much.
>
>> Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>
>Contemporary accounts say he was killed in the battle - nothing mysterious
>or deserving of quotes. You might as well say Richard "died" at Bosworth.
>
>
>
>
>

Having SEEN the skeletal remains, I contend he was in pain, HE WAS in Pain. 
[I cannot confirm the dagger tweaking, I surrender that one]

Death of Father & Relatives: 
My own father was killed in the Battle of the Atlantic in late 1942, I was embryonic at the time, 
the loss is still felt. [I am seventy in May] They are to issue Arctic Convoy Medals, it was just announced.
If he had been 'Decapitated' my young brother also, the bodies humiliated?

Richard's Father was known to him, Warwick was a kind of 'Mountbatten' [Stepfather?] 
Loss of Clarence, His Brother Edmund @ Wakefield, 
Mocking & Dishonouring bodies by Margaret of Anjou & Co. 
[Although Warwick fell out with Edward, Richard may well have been fond of his former mentor, Clarence did Vacillate.]

Bereavement: 
His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
[You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.] 
I would have Grieved & been 'Classed as 'Bereaved,' some losses are slight, some individualstake losses hard !

Loneliness:
Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. 
Most of the  others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.

  I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first. 

 Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 23:19
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>
>Carol responds:
>
>No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>
>Arthur:
>had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>
>Carol again:
>
>Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>
>Arthur:
>was a Bereaved Man,
>
>Carol:
>
>Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>
>Arthur:
>was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>
>Carol:
>No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>
>Arthur:
>Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
>Carol:
>
>Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
>Arthur:
>>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>
>As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>
>Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>
>Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Arthur, what a poignant story of your father. I am so sad you lost him before you knew him.
Humans have not evolved as far as we sometimes think. Yes, we have more human comforts, and more gadgets. But the basics, love, lust, loss, bereavement, disappointment, crushing defeat, hate, envy - all the biggies, are still with us. A fear cousin used to tell me "there is nothing new under the sun, just different people doing it"!
Granted none of us have been a king, or in line to be (I assume), and did not carry the weight of a nation, as well as the weight of armor. But, I think your conjecture is very close to the marrow. Spot on, and thank you for the lovely and loving thoughts about RIII.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



Having SEEN the skeletal remains, I contend he was in pain, HE WAS in Pain.
[I cannot confirm the dagger tweaking, I surrender that one]

Death of Father & Relatives:
My own father was killed in the Battle of the Atlantic in late 1942, I was embryonic at the time,
the loss is still felt. [I am seventy in May] They are to issue Arctic Convoy Medals, it was just announced.
If he had been 'Decapitated' my young brother also, the bodies humiliated?

Richard's Father was known to him, Warwick was a kind of 'Mountbatten' [Stepfather?]
Loss of Clarence, His Brother Edmund @ Wakefield,
Mocking & Dishonouring bodies by Margaret of Anjou & Co.
[Although Warwick fell out with Edward, Richard may well have been fond of his former mentor, Clarence did Vacillate.]

Bereavement:
His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
[You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.]
I would have Grieved & been 'Classed as 'Bereaved,' some losses are slight, some individualstake losses hard !

Loneliness:
Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard.
Most of the others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.

I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 23:19
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>Arthur wrote:
>> ý ý Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>
>Carol responds:
>
>No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>
>Arthur:
>had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>
>Carol again:
>
>Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>
>Arthur:
>was a Bereaved Man,
>
>Carol:
>
>Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>
>Arthur:
>was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>
>Carol:
>No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>
>Arthur:
>Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
>Carol:
>
>Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
>Arthur:
>> ý ý He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' afterý Tewkesbury. [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>
>As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>
>Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>
>Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

The dagger-tweaking, like the lip-gnawing, appears exclusively in chronicles written by people who had never met Richard III and were critical of his life, reign, and character.

Every contemporary account of Tewkesbury says the Prince of Wales died "in the field" (i.e., during the battle), although some say he "cried for succor" to... the duke of Clarence, who apparently, if that part is true, ignored him.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   Believe me a large number if not the majority of those who passed through my forensic wards had NOT had any history of killing until discovered or confessed. 
>
>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger, had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers', was a Bereaved Man, was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>
>   Despite the considerable experience of those professionals involved, a great many errors 
> have been made over the years.
>
>  I have 'Lifted the following. from Wikipaedia.
>
> Notable patients of Broadmoor Hospital - past and present
> * Antony Baekeland, grandson of Leo Baekeland, after his trial for stabbing his mother to death.[24]
> * Ian Ball, who attempted to kidnap Princess Anne in 1974
> * William Rutherford Benn, father of Margaret Rutherford
> * Ian Brady
> * Charles Bronson
> * Sharon Carr, who stabbed her first victim Katie Rackliff when she was just 12
> * David Copeland
> * Richard Dadd
> * Gregory Davis
> * Ibrahim Eidarous, alleged member of al-Jihad[25]
> * Kenneth Erskine
> * June and Jennifer Gibbons
> * Daniel Gonzalez
> * James Kelly, convicted of killing his wife, suspected of beingJack the Ripper, his memoirs place his whereabouts around other unsolved murders in the UK and the United States. * Ronald Kray
> * Thomas John Ley
> * Robert Maudsley
> * Roderick McLean
> * Dr. William Chester Minor, known as The Surgeon of Crowthorne
> * Daniel M'Naghten
> * Robert Napper
> * Edward Oxford
> * Nicky Reilly[26]
> * John Straffen
> * Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper
> * Roy Shaw
> * Ronald True
> * Graham Young, released by hospital as "fully recovered", and who later poisoned dozens of people, two fatally. Jailed aged 14 (youngest prisoner detained there since 1885).
>
>   All the above & MUCH more, have convinced me Richard was a more complex person than some Ricardians appear to believe, However I still feel EVEN IF he did acts which we cannot but be dismayed at, his reasons may have been good, if NOT the acts themselves.Understandable in the circumstances.
>
> I have tried NOT to shout too much!!
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:43
> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> > 
> >From: Arthurian
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:02 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >> The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from
> >> her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have
> >> been a major factor] She then killed another lady -
> >
> >But this wasn't somebody who appeared normal and then did terrible deeds -
> >far from it. She had murdered her own mother and she had actually been to
> >both the hospital and the police a few hopurs before the second killing and
> >told them "I feel I am about to kill again", but they turned her away. This
> >wasn't about not being able to tell that somebody was loopy, but about not
> >having enough high security psychiatric beds as a result of the care in the
> >community movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which abolished the majority of
> >psychiatric places out of a misguided belief that all psychiatric patients
> >were better off in normal housing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> The dagger-tweaking, like the lip-gnawing, appears exclusively in
> chronicles written by people who had never met Richard III and were
> critical of his life, reign, and character.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, though, just that nobody had
ever thought anything of it until his enemies decided to distort it. Given
that he'd lost several molars to dental caries, *cheek*-chewing must be
pretty-much a given, at least until they fell or were yanked out.

Arthur wrote:
>
[snip]
> Bereavement: 
> His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
> [You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.] 

Carol responds:

Not at all. I mentioned that cruel double loss in another place. I only meant that if you were talking about the time at which he supposedly killed the "Princes" (summer to autumn 1484 while he was on progress), neither loss had happened yet.

Arthur:
> Loneliness:
> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. Most of the  others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.

Carol responds:
I would never minimize Richard's losses. It's quite clear that he grieved for George (I wouldn't say that Edward had the support of two brothers, though; he and George were at odds from the time George was in his late teens--a touch of envy there, I think) and he would also have grieved for Edward, especially the lost Edward of his youth. I suspect that he also mourned both Warwick and his brother John (Marquis of Montagu)--what a tragedy that he didn't have them with him at Bosworth. And, like John Neville, he would have suffered conflicting loyalties between a loved cousin and a king. But I don't think that, at least until his son and wife died so close together, he allowed his losses to demoralize him. And he did have friends, real friends (among them Ratcliffe and Lovell, and yes, John Howard despite the age difference(, as well as men he could trust absolutely like Tyrrell and Brampton and Brackenbury. (He thought for a while that he could trust Buckingham, too--another loss of a different sort.)

And while we're talking of losses, look at Richard's mother, who suffered even more bereavements than her son. And yet, it seems, she remained strong through religious faith.

Arthur:
>   I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first. 

Carol responds:

I think that without religion, they would all have gone insane. It was what held their world together and gave them hope for a better world (after they suffered the penalty for the sins of this one). Richard's piety has been viewed as hypocrisy by his enemies, but I think that in the end it, his belief in the rightness of his cause, and the loyalty of his closest followers was all he had.

I would like to think that, if he had won Bosworth, he could have started over with a new wife, a new family, and new hope. But thanks to the treachery of Sir William Stanley and the baseless claim of Henry Tudor, we'll never know.

The thing is, though, that his suffering, deep as it was (and we've forgotten to list the friends he lost at Tewkesbury and Barnet to that long list) did not make him bitter. It seems to have helped him to develop empathy with the common man and, even more unusual for a man of his time, an empathy for women. He was, as the psychologists pointed out, pious, loyal, and concerned with justice, with a strong sense of right and wrong. But he was also, as they seem to have pointed out in part of the article that I didn't see earlier, very sensitive to betrayal. And if he was insecure (though not as insecure as Henry Tudor!), he had good reason. I think you're quite right that had he remained Protector, he would not have lived long once the young king began to rule on his own. A victory at Bosworth, a marriage alliance with a foreign power. and a healthy son would have changed all that. Secure on the throne and believing in his right, he would have had no difficulty putting down any uprising in favor of Edward the ex-fifth when the boy became older. I can see Richard now, smiling and saying that it was a matter for Parliament to decide.

Sorry. Fantasizing. But you do seem to have great compassion for Richard which I find surprising given your near certainty that he killed his nephews. Just bear in mind that almost nothing Shakespeare said about him has any basis in fact and Sir Thomas More's story of the "murder" is as full of holes as a sieve. Even the scoliosis, which some people say confirms the "hunchback" myth (and, by implication, the "crimes") could not have been noticeable when he was dressed or the contemporary chroniclers would have mentioned more than a raised shoulder (and even that only along with obvious absurdities like two months in his mother's womb).

Carol

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of
> TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only
> [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard.

He did have John Kendall, his secretary, who was a lot older than him and
probably served as some sort of father substitute, but in general yes, from
Edward's death onwards his life was one long slow car-crash, one betrayal or
bereavemnet or false accusation after another.

Yeah, you know, that brings up a good point. I've been meaning to ask you, Arthur: where are you sourcing your statements? It doesn't seem like your sources are doing you any favors, reliable info-wise. I've been wondering if you've read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", which, although it's ostensibly a detective novel, has a marvelous, logical approach to laying out the pro- and anti- cases, discussing each point in detail. It's a great place to start because then when you move to the bios and original docs (Harleian, Parliament rolls, letters, the York records), you'll recognize the main points when they come up. Relying on chroniclers writing long after Richard's death for a realistic view of his life and reign is kind of like reading the Talmud to the exclusion of the Torah. (I apologize for the complexity of that image.)

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Arthur wrote:
> >    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>
> Arthur:
> had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>
> Carol again:
>
> Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>
> Arthur:
> was a Bereaved Man,
>
> Carol:
>
> Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>
> Arthur:
> was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>
> Carol:
> No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>
> Arthur:
> Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
> Carol:
>
> Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
> Arthur:
> >    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>
> As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>
> Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>
> Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>
> Carol
>

I am half way through the book now. It is so good, and yes delightfully logical!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



Yeah, you know, that brings up a good point. I've been meaning to ask you, Arthur: where are you sourcing your statements? It doesn't seem like your sources are doing you any favors, reliable info-wise. I've been wondering if you've read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", which, although it's ostensibly a detective novel, has a marvelous, logical approach to laying out the pro- and anti- cases, discussing each point in detail. It's a great place to start because then when you move to the bios and original docs (Harleian, Parliament rolls, letters, the York records), you'll recognize the main points when they come up. Relying on chroniclers writing long after Richard's death for a realistic view of his life and reign is kind of like reading the Talmud to the exclusion of the Torah. (I apologize for the complexity of that image.)

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Arthur wrote:
> > ý ý Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>
> Arthur:
> had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>
> Carol again:
>
> Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>
> Arthur:
> was a Bereaved Man,
>
> Carol:
>
> Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>
> Arthur:
> was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>
> Carol:
> No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>
> Arthur:
> Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
> Carol:
>
> Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
> Arthur:
> > ý ý He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' afterý Tewkesbury. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>
> As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>
> Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>
> Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>
> Carol
>

Oh, I thought the wear on his teeth was the result of the rather rugged bread of the time, since sugar wasn't common and, accordingly, neither was tooth-rot. Did they say something different? (I swear, dude's so popular now the clipping services are gonna quit. Provided there still are some.)

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > The dagger-tweaking, like the lip-gnawing, appears exclusively in
> > chronicles written by people who had never met Richard III and were
> > critical of his life, reign, and character.
>
> That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, though, just that nobody had
> ever thought anything of it until his enemies decided to distort it. Given
> that he'd lost several molars to dental caries, *cheek*-chewing must be
> pretty-much a given, at least until they fell or were yanked out.
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Oh, I thought the wear on his teeth was the result of the rather rugged
> bread of the time, since sugar wasn't common and, accordingly, neither was
> tooth-rot. Did they say something different? (I swear, dude's so popular
> now the clipping services are gonna quit. Provided there still are some.)

The wear's from the gritty bread, but the missing teeth they said were due
to dental caries. There's a type of airy, almost meringue-like
Leicestershire biscuit called a jumble or jumbly which is made from flour,
lemon zest and eggs and masses of butter and sugar, and which is reputed to
have been taken from a written recipe dropped by Richard's cook at Bosworth.
If true, it would explain a lot - they don't half stick to yer teeth.

"Yea, though I die a messy death following my monarch into battle, yet shall I take not one more pace without Mum's jumbly recipe couched safe within my breast! For England, and sweets! CHAAAAAAAAARGE!" And then, after that mighty vow, dude went and dropped it.

I'm sorry. That really isn't very funny, is it?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > Oh, I thought the wear on his teeth was the result of the rather rugged
> > bread of the time, since sugar wasn't common and, accordingly, neither was
> > tooth-rot. Did they say something different? (I swear, dude's so popular
> > now the clipping services are gonna quit. Provided there still are some.)
>
> The wear's from the gritty bread, but the missing teeth they said were due
> to dental caries. There's a type of airy, almost meringue-like
> Leicestershire biscuit called a jumble or jumbly which is made from flour,
> lemon zest and eggs and masses of butter and sugar, and which is reputed to
> have been taken from a written recipe dropped by Richard's cook at Bosworth.
> If true, it would explain a lot - they don't half stick to yer teeth.
>

At the very least Richard was a man in 'Chronic Pain' due to 'Scoliosis', Stress due to fear of his life over a protracted period, A bereaved & lonely man. None of the foregoing is having a POP at him, honest.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:02
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>The dagger-tweaking, like the lip-gnawing, appears exclusively in chronicles written by people who had never met Richard III and were critical of his life, reign, and character.
>
>Every contemporary account of Tewkesbury says the Prince of Wales died "in the field" (i.e., during the battle), although some say he "cried for succor" to... the duke of Clarence, who apparently, if that part is true, ignored him.
>
>--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>>
>>   Believe me a large number if not the majority of those who passed through my forensic wards had NOT had any history of killing until discovered or confessed. 
>>
>>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger, had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers', was a Bereaved Man, was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>>
>>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>>
>>   Despite the considerable experience of those professionals involved, a great many errors 
>> have been made over the years.
>>
>>  I have 'Lifted the following. from Wikipaedia.
>>
>> Notable patients of Broadmoor Hospital - past and present
>> * Antony Baekeland, grandson of Leo Baekeland, after his trial for stabbing his mother to death.[24]
>> * Ian Ball, who attempted to kidnap Princess Anne in 1974
>> * William Rutherford Benn, father of Margaret Rutherford
>> * Ian Brady
>> * Charles Bronson
>> * Sharon Carr, who stabbed her first victim Katie Rackliff when she was just 12
>> * David Copeland
>> * Richard Dadd
>> * Gregory Davis
>> * Ibrahim Eidarous, alleged member of al-Jihad[25]
>> * Kenneth Erskine
>> * June and Jennifer Gibbons
>> * Daniel Gonzalez
>> * James Kelly, convicted of killing his wife, suspected of beingJack the Ripper, his memoirs place his whereabouts around other unsolved murders in the UK and the United States. * Ronald Kray
>> * Thomas John Ley
>> * Robert Maudsley
>> * Roderick McLean
>> * Dr. William Chester Minor, known as The Surgeon of Crowthorne
>> * Daniel M'Naghten
>> * Robert Napper
>> * Edward Oxford
>> * Nicky Reilly[26]
>> * John Straffen
>> * Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper
>> * Roy Shaw
>> * Ronald True
>> * Graham Young, released by hospital as "fully recovered", and who later poisoned dozens of people, two fatally. Jailed aged 14 (youngest prisoner detained there since 1885).
>>
>>   All the above & MUCH more, have convinced me Richard was a more complex person than some Ricardians appear to believe, However I still feel EVEN IF he did acts which we cannot but be dismayed at, his reasons may have been good, if NOT the acts themselves.Understandable in the circumstances.
>>
>> I have tried NOT to shout too much!!
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Claire M Jordan
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:43
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >From: Arthurian
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:02 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>> >
>> >> The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from
>> >> her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have
>> >> been a major factor] She then killed another lady -
>> >
>> >But this wasn't somebody who appeared normal and then did terrible deeds -
>> >far from it. She had murdered her own mother and she had actually been to
>> >both the hospital and the police a few hopurs before the second killing and
>> >told them "I feel I am about to kill again", but they turned her away. This
>> >wasn't about not being able to tell that somebody was loopy, but about not
>> >having enough high security psychiatric beds as a result of the care in the
>> >community movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which abolished the majority of
>> >psychiatric places out of a misguided belief that all psychiatric patients
>> >were better off in normal housing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

As a former medical person I am convinced [How I wanted to write that in Capitals] that Richard was in Chronic severe back pain and was [in short] probably suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. [Shell Shock before shells were invented?]

For many years a friend of mine who was at Hillsborough [Nearly a hundred people died in about twenty minutes] Coped brilliantly, supported survivors & bereaved families, the near twenty years later, cracked & hung himself.

Perhaps I should have used the term earlier. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:23
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> Bereavement: 
>> His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
>> [You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.] 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Not at all. I mentioned that cruel double loss in another place. I only meant that if you were talking about the time at which he supposedly killed the "Princes" (summer to autumn 1484 while he was on progress), neither loss had happened yet.
>
>Arthur:
>> Loneliness:
>> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. Most of the  others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.
>
>Carol responds:
>I would never minimize Richard's losses. It's quite clear that he grieved for George (I wouldn't say that Edward had the support of two brothers, though; he and George were at odds from the time George was in his late teens--a touch of envy there, I think) and he would also have grieved for Edward, especially the lost Edward of his youth. I suspect that he also mourned both Warwick and his brother John (Marquis of Montagu)--what a tragedy that he didn't have them with him at Bosworth. And, like John Neville, he would have suffered conflicting loyalties between a loved cousin and a king. But I don't think that, at least until his son and wife died so close together, he allowed his losses to demoralize him. And he did have friends, real friends (among them Ratcliffe and Lovell, and yes, John Howard despite the age difference(, as well as men he could trust absolutely like Tyrrell and Brampton and Brackenbury. (He thought for a while that he could trust
Buckingham, too--another loss of a different sort.)
>
>And while we're talking of losses, look at Richard's mother, who suffered even more bereavements than her son. And yet, it seems, she remained strong through religious faith.
>
>Arthur:
>>   I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first. 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I think that without religion, they would all have gone insane. It was what held their world together and gave them hope for a better world (after they suffered the penalty for the sins of this one). Richard's piety has been viewed as hypocrisy by his enemies, but I think that in the end it, his belief in the rightness of his cause, and the loyalty of his closest followers was all he had.
>
>I would like to think that, if he had won Bosworth, he could have started over with a new wife, a new family, and new hope. But thanks to the treachery of Sir William Stanley and the baseless claim of Henry Tudor, we'll never know.
>
>The thing is, though, that his suffering, deep as it was (and we've forgotten to list the friends he lost at Tewkesbury and Barnet to that long list) did not make him bitter. It seems to have helped him to develop empathy with the common man and, even more unusual for a man of his time, an empathy for women. He was, as the psychologists pointed out, pious, loyal, and concerned with justice, with a strong sense of right and wrong. But he was also, as they seem to have pointed out in part of the article that I didn't see earlier, very sensitive to betrayal. And if he was insecure (though not as insecure as Henry Tudor!), he had good reason. I think you're quite right that had he remained Protector, he would not have lived long once the young king began to rule on his own. A victory at Bosworth, a marriage alliance with a foreign power. and a healthy son would have changed all that. Secure on the throne and believing in his right, he would have had no
difficulty putting down any uprising in favor of Edward the ex-fifth when the boy became older. I can see Richard now, smiling and saying that it was a matter for Parliament to decide.
>
>Sorry. Fantasizing. But you do seem to have great compassion for Richard which I find surprising given your near certainty that he killed his nephews. Just bear in mind that almost nothing Shakespeare said about him has any basis in fact and Sir Thomas More's story of the "murder" is as full of holes as a sieve. Even the scoliosis, which some people say confirms the "hunchback" myth (and, by implication, the "crimes") could not have been noticeable when he was dressed or the contemporary chroniclers would have mentioned more than a raised shoulder (and even that only along with obvious absurdities like two months in his mother's womb).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? [Shell Shock Before Shells were invented.]

Not just One Event but 'Cumulative' Events?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:28
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of
>> TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only
>> [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard.
>
>He did have John Kendall, his secretary, who was a lot older than him and
>probably served as some sort of father substitute, but in general yes, from
>Edward's death onwards his life was one long slow car-crash, one betrayal or
>bereavemnet or false accusation after another.
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> As a former medical person I am convinced [How I wanted to write that in
> Capitals] that Richard was in Chronic severe back pain

Well, if it followed the same pattern as a friend of mine who has scoliosis,
it would be *episodic* back pain - sometimes it would feel normal, sometimes
it would lock up and spasm, although massage would help a lot, if available.

> and was [in short] probably suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
> [Shell Shock before shells were invented?]

Very possibly.

> For many years a friend of mine who was at Hillsborough [Nearly a hundred
> people died in about twenty minutes] Coped brilliantly, supported
> survivors & bereaved families, the near twenty years later, cracked & hung
> himself.

I'm sorry to hear it.

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:23
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> Bereavement:Â
>> His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or
>> Both] Re: Edward?
>> [You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.]Â
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Not at all. I mentioned that cruel double loss in another place. I only
>meant that if you were talking about the time at which he supposedly killed
>the "Princes" (summer to autumn 1484 while he was on progress), neither
>loss had happened yet.
>
>Arthur:
>> Loneliness:
>> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support
>> of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had
>> only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. Most of the  others around him
>> were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected
>> traitors at that.
>
>Carol responds:
>I would never minimize Richard's losses. It's quite clear that he grieved
>for George (I wouldn't say that Edward had the support of two brothers,
>though; he and George were at odds from the time George was in his late
>teens--a touch of envy there, I think) and he would also have grieved for
>Edward, especially the lost Edward of his youth. I suspect that he also
>mourned both Warwick and his brother John (Marquis of Montagu)--what a
>tragedy that he didn't have them with him at Bosworth. And, like John
>Neville, he would have suffered conflicting loyalties between a loved
>cousin and a king. But I don't think that, at least until his son and wife
>died so close together, he allowed his losses to demoralize him. And he did
>have friends, real friends (among them Ratcliffe and Lovell, and yes, John
>Howard despite the age difference(, as well as men he could trust
>absolutely like Tyrrell and Brampton and Brackenbury. (He thought for a
>while that he could trust
Buckingham, too--another loss of a different sort.)
>
>And while we're talking of losses, look at Richard's mother, who suffered
>even more bereavements than her son. And yet, it seems, she remained strong
>through religious faith.
>
>Arthur:
>> Â I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is
>> 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion &
>> superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is
>> apparent at first.Â
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I think that without religion, they would all have gone insane. It was what
>held their world together and gave them hope for a better world (after they
>suffered the penalty for the sins of this one). Richard's piety has been
>viewed as hypocrisy by his enemies, but I think that in the end it, his
>belief in the rightness of his cause, and the loyalty of his closest
>followers was all he had.
>
>I would like to think that, if he had won Bosworth, he could have started
>over with a new wife, a new family, and new hope. But thanks to the
>treachery of Sir William Stanley and the baseless claim of Henry Tudor,
>we'll never know.
>
>The thing is, though, that his suffering, deep as it was (and we've
>forgotten to list the friends he lost at Tewkesbury and Barnet to that long
>list) did not make him bitter. It seems to have helped him to develop
>empathy with the common man and, even more unusual for a man of his time,
>an empathy for women. He was, as the psychologists pointed out, pious,
>loyal, and concerned with justice, with a strong sense of right and wrong.
>But he was also, as they seem to have pointed out in part of the article
>that I didn't see earlier, very sensitive to betrayal. And if he was
>insecure (though not as insecure as Henry Tudor!), he had good reason. I
>think you're quite right that had he remained Protector, he would not have
>lived long once the young king began to rule on his own. A victory at
>Bosworth, a marriage alliance with a foreign power. and a healthy son would
>have changed all that. Secure on the throne and believing in his right, he
>would have had no
difficulty putting down any uprising in favor of Edward the ex-fifth when
the boy became older. I can see Richard now, smiling and saying that it was
a matter for Parliament to decide.
>
>Sorry. Fantasizing. But you do seem to have great compassion for Richard
>which I find surprising given your near certainty that he killed his
>nephews. Just bear in mind that almost nothing Shakespeare said about him
>has any basis in fact and Sir Thomas More's story of the "murder" is as
>full of holes as a sieve. Even the scoliosis, which some people say
>confirms the "hunchback" myth (and, by implication, the "crimes") could not
>have been noticeable when he was dressed or the contemporary chroniclers
>would have mentioned more than a raised shoulder (and even that only along
>with obvious absurdities like two months in his mother's womb).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

   I am Not a Richard 'Specialist' however in view of my Forensic Psychiatric Background I have looked at Richard from 
[I hope] in a broadly sympathetic way. 

In view of his history I feel a good case can be made for a man suffering from a degree of 'Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome' [Father & Brothers Killed, Clarence by Edward, others at Wakefield, their bodies dishonoured, Fairly recent loss of his nearest & dearest [Son & Wife] Let down by Warwick [His Father in law/childhood mentor,] 

Constantly in fear of his life, Chronic Severe Back Pain, 

I salute your research & fellow Ricardians who have many years thus under their belts. 

I am primarily a former 'Chronic Visitor of old churches, I have some knowledge of individuals of the era from monumental brasses/effigies. [Thomas 1st Earl of Derby is buried in my local church, [Translated from Burscough Abbey at the dissolution of the monasteries.]  

Some Ricardians say that was when he was eight years old, As someone who has lost people [Father & Uncle in War, WW2 - Albeit before I was born ] This nevertheless has it's effects. [Can I offer up that the Government announced only this week, the striking of two medals 'Arctic Convoys & Bomber Command' these were for action seventy years ago, Events that STILL affect & move people.

Edward & Clarence would still qualify as 'Bereavements' indeed would have added to his isolation & perhaps paranoia, paranoia that can be justified as subsequent events prove.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 2:01
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Yeah, you know, that brings up a good point. I've been meaning to ask you, Arthur: where are you sourcing your statements? It doesn't seem like your sources are doing you any favors, reliable info-wise. I've been wondering if you've read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", which, although it's ostensibly a detective novel, has a marvelous, logical approach to laying out the pro- and anti- cases, discussing each point in detail. It's a great place to start because then when you move to the bios and original docs (Harleian, Parliament rolls, letters, the York records), you'll recognize the main points when they come up. Relying on chroniclers writing long after Richard's death for a realistic view of his life and reign is kind of like reading the Talmud to the exclusion of the Torah. (I apologize for the complexity of that image.)
>
>--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>> Arthur wrote:
>> >    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>>
>> Arthur:
>> had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>>
>> Carol again:
>>
>> Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>>
>> Arthur:
>> was a Bereaved Man,
>>
>> Carol:
>>
>> Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>>
>> Arthur:
>> was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>>
>> Carol:
>> No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>>
>> Arthur:
>> Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>>
>> Carol:
>>
>> Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>
>> Arthur:
>> >    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>>
>> As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>>
>> Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>>
>> Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I can only offer 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder' [Shell Shock without the Shells!!]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:23
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> Bereavement: 
>> His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
>> [You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.] 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Not at all. I mentioned that cruel double loss in another place. I only meant that if you were talking about the time at which he supposedly killed the "Princes" (summer to autumn 1484 while he was on progress), neither loss had happened yet.
>
>Arthur:
>> Loneliness:
>> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. Most of the  others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.
>
>Carol responds:
>I would never minimize Richard's losses. It's quite clear that he grieved for George (I wouldn't say that Edward had the support of two brothers, though; he and George were at odds from the time George was in his late teens--a touch of envy there, I think) and he would also have grieved for Edward, especially the lost Edward of his youth. I suspect that he also mourned both Warwick and his brother John (Marquis of Montagu)--what a tragedy that he didn't have them with him at Bosworth. And, like John Neville, he would have suffered conflicting loyalties between a loved cousin and a king. But I don't think that, at least until his son and wife died so close together, he allowed his losses to demoralize him. And he did have friends, real friends (among them Ratcliffe and Lovell, and yes, John Howard despite the age difference(, as well as men he could trust absolutely like Tyrrell and Brampton and Brackenbury. (He thought for a while that he could trust
Buckingham, too--another loss of a different sort.)
>
>And while we're talking of losses, look at Richard's mother, who suffered even more bereavements than her son. And yet, it seems, she remained strong through religious faith.
>
>Arthur:
>>   I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first. 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I think that without religion, they would all have gone insane. It was what held their world together and gave them hope for a better world (after they suffered the penalty for the sins of this one). Richard's piety has been viewed as hypocrisy by his enemies, but I think that in the end it, his belief in the rightness of his cause, and the loyalty of his closest followers was all he had.
>
>I would like to think that, if he had won Bosworth, he could have started over with a new wife, a new family, and new hope. But thanks to the treachery of Sir William Stanley and the baseless claim of Henry Tudor, we'll never know.
>
>The thing is, though, that his suffering, deep as it was (and we've forgotten to list the friends he lost at Tewkesbury and Barnet to that long list) did not make him bitter. It seems to have helped him to develop empathy with the common man and, even more unusual for a man of his time, an empathy for women. He was, as the psychologists pointed out, pious, loyal, and concerned with justice, with a strong sense of right and wrong. But he was also, as they seem to have pointed out in part of the article that I didn't see earlier, very sensitive to betrayal. And if he was insecure (though not as insecure as Henry Tudor!), he had good reason. I think you're quite right that had he remained Protector, he would not have lived long once the young king began to rule on his own. A victory at Bosworth, a marriage alliance with a foreign power. and a healthy son would have changed all that. Secure on the throne and believing in his right, he would have had no
difficulty putting down any uprising in favor of Edward the ex-fifth when the boy became older. I can see Richard now, smiling and saying that it was a matter for Parliament to decide.
>
>Sorry. Fantasizing. But you do seem to have great compassion for Richard which I find surprising given your near certainty that he killed his nephews. Just bear in mind that almost nothing Shakespeare said about him has any basis in fact and Sir Thomas More's story of the "murder" is as full of holes as a sieve. Even the scoliosis, which some people say confirms the "hunchback" myth (and, by implication, the "crimes") could not have been noticeable when he was dressed or the contemporary chroniclers would have mentioned more than a raised shoulder (and even that only along with obvious absurdities like two months in his mother's womb).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I agree as to the failings of the NHS Psychiatric 'System' I was offering this a a means of showing the 'Fallibility of Psychologists in diagnosing Richard as Innocent [Or Guilty for that matter]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 1:02
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>The dagger-tweaking, like the lip-gnawing, appears exclusively in chronicles written by people who had never met Richard III and were critical of his life, reign, and character.
>
>Every contemporary account of Tewkesbury says the Prince of Wales died "in the field" (i.e., during the battle), although some say he "cried for succor" to... the duke of Clarence, who apparently, if that part is true, ignored him.
>
>--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>>
>>   Believe me a large number if not the majority of those who passed through my forensic wards had NOT had any history of killing until discovered or confessed. 
>>
>>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger, had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers', was a Bereaved Man, was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>>
>>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>>
>>   Despite the considerable experience of those professionals involved, a great many errors 
>> have been made over the years.
>>
>>  I have 'Lifted the following. from Wikipaedia.
>>
>> Notable patients of Broadmoor Hospital - past and present
>> * Antony Baekeland, grandson of Leo Baekeland, after his trial for stabbing his mother to death.[24]
>> * Ian Ball, who attempted to kidnap Princess Anne in 1974
>> * William Rutherford Benn, father of Margaret Rutherford
>> * Ian Brady
>> * Charles Bronson
>> * Sharon Carr, who stabbed her first victim Katie Rackliff when she was just 12
>> * David Copeland
>> * Richard Dadd
>> * Gregory Davis
>> * Ibrahim Eidarous, alleged member of al-Jihad[25]
>> * Kenneth Erskine
>> * June and Jennifer Gibbons
>> * Daniel Gonzalez
>> * James Kelly, convicted of killing his wife, suspected of beingJack the Ripper, his memoirs place his whereabouts around other unsolved murders in the UK and the United States. * Ronald Kray
>> * Thomas John Ley
>> * Robert Maudsley
>> * Roderick McLean
>> * Dr. William Chester Minor, known as The Surgeon of Crowthorne
>> * Daniel M'Naghten
>> * Robert Napper
>> * Edward Oxford
>> * Nicky Reilly[26]
>> * John Straffen
>> * Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper
>> * Roy Shaw
>> * Ronald True
>> * Graham Young, released by hospital as "fully recovered", and who later poisoned dozens of people, two fatally. Jailed aged 14 (youngest prisoner detained there since 1885).
>>
>>   All the above & MUCH more, have convinced me Richard was a more complex person than some Ricardians appear to believe, However I still feel EVEN IF he did acts which we cannot but be dismayed at, his reasons may have been good, if NOT the acts themselves.Understandable in the circumstances.
>>
>> I have tried NOT to shout too much!!
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Claire M Jordan
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:43
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >From: Arthurian
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:02 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>> >
>> >> The News this evening refers to a lady who was released as 'Safe' from
>> >> her detention for killing her mother, [Psychological Reports will have
>> >> been a major factor] She then killed another lady -
>> >
>> >But this wasn't somebody who appeared normal and then did terrible deeds -
>> >far from it. She had murdered her own mother and she had actually been to
>> >both the hospital and the police a few hopurs before the second killing and
>> >told them "I feel I am about to kill again", but they turned her away. This
>> >wasn't about not being able to tell that somebody was loopy, but about not
>> >having enough high security psychiatric beds as a result of the care in the
>> >community movement of the 1980s and 1990s, which abolished the majority of
>> >psychiatric places out of a misguided belief that all psychiatric patients
>> >were better off in normal housing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> I agree as to the failings of the NHS Psychiatric 'System' I was offering
> this a a means of showing the 'Fallibility of Psychologists in diagnosing
> Richard as Innocent [Or Guilty for that matter]

Yes, but the point is that these people whom they have misdiagnosed,
certainly in the case of this women, were people who were very obviously
dodgy and you wonder why they didn't spot that fact. [Also, the woman in
question suffered from "epoisodes" and may well have been safe when she was
released, since she was apparently normal for two years thereafter.]

We, us, not psychologists, can see evidence of Richard's known behaviour.
If you said he had lost his rag spectacularly and personally knifed somebody
who had betrayed him that might make psychological sense, especially if he
had PTSD, just as my grandfather briefly "lost it" and reacted to rioting
prisoners as if they were Japanese soldiers. But nothing in Richard's known
behaviour suggests that he would arrange to have two schoolboys murdered in
cold blood because they were an inconvenience - there's no way that these
two boys, who weren't even anywhere near him at the time that they
disappeared from London, could have triggered a PTSD flashback. If anything
they would have to remind him of himself and George going into exile, not an
enemy.

And it all comes back to Henry Tudor. Henry must have had his own
insecurities, he'd certainly had a stressful childhood, being ripped away
from his family when he was just a toddler, but everything about him
suggests that he was rational, steady and scheming. So come on, if you're
so sure that Richard must have killed his nephews for psychological rasons,
what psychological reasons do you deduce to explain why Henry spent his
reign being pestered by claimants claiming to be one of the missing boys,
and he never, ever said "You can't be my brother in law because my brother
in law is dead"? Not even after his wife and mother in law were dead?

Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also  whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard.  H     


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 2:01
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

Yeah, you know, that brings up a good point. I've been meaning to ask you, Arthur: where are you sourcing your statements? It doesn't seem like your sources are doing you any favors, reliable info-wise. I've been wondering if you've read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time", which, although it's ostensibly a detective novel, has a marvelous, logical approach to laying out the pro- and anti- cases, discussing each point in detail. It's a great place to start because then when you move to the bios and original docs (Harleian, Parliament rolls, letters, the York records), you'll recognize the main points when they come up. Relying on chroniclers writing long after Richard's death for a realistic view of his life and reign is kind of like reading the Talmud to the exclusion of the Torah. (I apologize for the complexity of that image.)

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Arthur wrote:
> >    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
>
> Arthur:
> had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
>
> Carol again:
>
> Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
>
> Arthur:
> was a Bereaved Man,
>
> Carol:
>
> Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
>
> Arthur:
> was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
>
> Carol:
> No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
>
> Arthur:
> Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
>
> Carol:
>
> Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
> Arthur:
> >    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
>
> As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
>
> Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
>
> Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
>
> Carol
>

There's a piece missing, I think, in this discussion. Richard's view of
how the universe works has to have been very different than our own - has
anyone addressed how our mental models influence our psychology? I can't
help worrying that there must have been some connection / impact, of one on
the other.

A J

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I am Not a Richard 'Specialist' however in view of my
> Forensic Psychiatric Background I have looked at Richard from
> [I hope] in a broadly sympathetic way.
>
> In view of his history I feel a good case can be made for a man suffering
> from a degree of 'Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome' [Father & Brothers
> Killed, Clarence by Edward, others at Wakefield, their bodies dishonoured,
> Fairly recent loss of his nearest & dearest [Son & Wife] Let down by
> Warwick [His Father in law/childhood mentor,]
>
> Constantly in fear of his life, Chronic Severe Back Pain,
>
> I salute your research & fellow Ricardians who have many years thus under
> their belts.
>
> I am primarily a former 'Chronic Visitor of old churches, I have some
> knowledge of individuals of the era from monumental brasses/effigies.
> [Thomas 1st Earl of Derby is buried in my local church, [Translated from
> Burscough Abbey at the dissolution of the monasteries.]
>
> Some Ricardians say that was when he was eight years old, As someone who
> has lost people [Father & Uncle in War, WW2 - Albeit before I was born ]
> This nevertheless has it's effects. [Can I offer up that the Government
> announced only this week, the striking of two medals 'Arctic Convoys &
> Bomber Command' these were for action seventy years ago, Events that STILL
> affect & move people.
>
> Edward & Clarence would still qualify as 'Bereavements' indeed would have
> added to his isolation & perhaps paranoia, paranoia that can be justified
> as subsequent events prove.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
> <snip>
>

We have indeed a few weeks ago spent quite a time discussing the medieval psyche - in particular that this world was a preparation for the next etc. It came up when we were discussing whether he would have been suicidal because of all his personal losses, at Bosworth. H



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 13:41
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

There's a piece missing, I think, in this discussion. Richard's view of
how the universe works has to have been very different than our own - has
anyone addressed how our mental models influence our psychology? I can't
help worrying that there must have been some connection / impact, of one on
the other.

A J

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Arthurian lancastrian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I am Not a Richard 'Specialist' however in view of my
> Forensic Psychiatric Background I have looked at Richard from
> [I hope] in a broadly sympathetic way.
>
> In view of his history I feel a good case can be made for a man suffering
> from a degree of 'Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome' [Father & Brothers
> Killed, Clarence by Edward, others at Wakefield, their bodies dishonoured,
> Fairly recent loss of his nearest & dearest [Son & Wife] Let down by
> Warwick [His Father in law/childhood mentor,]
>
> Constantly in fear of his life, Chronic Severe Back Pain,
>
> I salute your research & fellow Ricardians who have many years thus under
> their belts.
>
> I am primarily a former 'Chronic Visitor of old churches, I have some
> knowledge of individuals of the era from monumental brasses/effigies.
> [Thomas 1st Earl of Derby is buried in my local church, [Translated from
> Burscough Abbey at the dissolution of the monasteries.]
>
> Some Ricardians say that was when he was eight years old, As someone who
> has lost people [Father & Uncle in War, WW2 - Albeit before I was born ]
> This nevertheless has it's effects. [Can I offer up that the Government
> announced only this week, the striking of two medals 'Arctic Convoys &
> Bomber Command' these were for action seventy years ago, Events that STILL
> affect & move people.
>
> Edward & Clarence would still qualify as 'Bereavements' indeed would have
> added to his isolation & perhaps paranoia, paranoia that can be justified
> as subsequent events prove.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
>

Arthur wrote:
>
> I can only offer 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder' [Shell Shock without the Shells!!]

Carol responds:

Hi, Arthur. No need to repeat the same post three times. We did see it. I went online to check the symptoms of PTSD from a reliable source, the Mayo Clinic, which I'll quote here:

"Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms typically start within three months of a traumatic event. In a small number of cases, though, PTSD symptoms may not appear until years after the event.

"Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms are generally grouped into three types: intrusive memories, avoidance and numbing, and increased anxiety or emotional arousal (hyperarousal).

"Symptoms of intrusive memories may include:

"Flashbacks, or reliving the traumatic event for minutes or even days at a time
"Upsetting dreams about the traumatic event

"Symptoms of avoidance and emotional numbing may include:

"Trying to avoid thinking or talking about the traumatic event
Feeling emotionally numb
Avoiding activities you once enjoyed
Hopelessness about the future
Memory problems
Trouble concentrating
Difficulty maintaining close relationships

"Symptoms of anxiety and increased emotional arousal may include:

"Irritability or anger
Overwhelming guilt or shame
Self-destructive behavior, such as drinking too much
Trouble sleeping
Being easily startled or frightened
Hearing or seeing things that aren't there

"Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms can come and go. You may have more post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms when things are stressful in general, or when you run into reminders of what you went through. You may hear a car backfire and relive combat experiences, for instance. Or you may see a report on the news about a rape and feel overcome by memories of your own assault."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/DS00246/DSECTION=symptoms

It's very hard to say whether any of these symptoms (based on modern patients) apply to Richard. There are rumors that he had trouble sleeping, usually attributed to guilt or remorse, but there's no way to verify those rumors (from the increasingly unreliable Croyland chronicler, who despite not being there and whose Tudor sources also could not have been there, reports that Richard had nightmares before Bosworth. There's also the story (whose source I don't recall at the moment) that he had his own traveling bed for sleeping away from home. But either of those stories, if true, could be explained by pain from scoliosis.

There is no indication that he had trouble concentrating, memory problems, or difficulty maintaining close relationships, or that he engaged in self-destructive behavior (Edward IV certainly did--adultery, overeating, and probably drinking too much. Some people think that George's supposed drowning in malmsey relates to *his* drinking too much, but even Mancini reports Richard's private life was blameless. He certainly was not easily startled or frightened; his courage on the battlefield is acknowledged even by his enemies.

But there's no question that he wanted to be loved by the English people and that he expected his friends to be as loyal as he was, or that he had flashes of the famous Plantagenet temper, which went back at least as far as Henry II.

I think his mental state as king is summed up by the last lines of the prayer in his Book of Hours:

"Lord Jesus Christ, deign to free my, your servant King Richard, from every tribulation, sorrow and trouble in which I am placed…hear me, in the name of all your goodness, for which I give thanks, and for all the gifts granted to me, because you made me from nothing and redeemed me out of your bounteous love and pity from eternal damnation to promising eternal life."

When this prayer was recorded, I don't know, but I suspect that it was after the death of his son and possibly after the death of his wife. It doesn't sound like the prayer of a man with PTSD to me, more like that of a pious fifteenth-century Catholic trying to bear the sorrows of this life in a spirit of hope and faith.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> When this prayer was recorded, I don't know, but I suspect that it was
> after the death of his son and possibly after the death of his wife.

As I understand it, it's believed to be a prayer intended for a woman in
childbirth and probably originally written into the book for Ann's
prospective use but she died without ever filling in her name, so he wrote
his in instead. Then MB scribbled him out and wrote herself in in his
place.

> It doesn't sound like the prayer of a man with PTSD to me,

It does to me, actually, because it's extremely long and hypnotic and as
such sounds like the prayer of somebody who felt in need of being hypnotised
calm. But that may just be the coincidence of its original use, of course.

[Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
in her early to mid teens.]

It would be surprising if Richard didn't have some symptoms of trauma,
considering he had been sent into exile in a foreign country at seven after
learning of the gruesome deaths and dismemberment of his father and brother,
and then not knowing for months whether his mother or his oldest brother
were still alive, with no familiar presence except George with whom he very
probably already didn't get along, and who doesn't sound like he was
probably ever very soothing company. And it could be PTSD which sent George
as loopy as he ended up.

Certainly if Richard did have PTSD he coped with it very well - but then so
did my grandfather, except for about three fatal minutes in his entire life,
which three minutes led to the needless deaths of several relatively
harmless Burmese petty crooks.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also  whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard.  H     

Carol responds:

Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.

But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed
> sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a
> conspiracy by Rivers et al.

As you know, I think a message reached him in the middle of the night to
tell him that Dorset had raided the Treasure. It certainly *could* have
reached him. And I suspect that Buckingham was a drunk (although that
doesn't preclude his being a sociopath as well).

His writing on the three-signatures document is wavering and thready, in an
age when thready writing must have been very unusual, and looks as if he was
barely coping with the pen at all.

Butler's chronicle attributes the beginning of the falling out between
Richard and Buckingham to a supposed incident in which Buckingham sent a
message to Richard telling him he wasn't going to come to the coronation
ceremony on account of "sickness", and accto Butler's informant (whoever
that was) Richard replied "If you don't come to the coronation I shall come
in person and fetch you", which sounds to me like a real piece of
conversation. Butler attributes motives to Buckingham (jealousy at seeing
Richard crowned) which he couldn't possibly have known, but it sounds to me
like "sober friend losing patience with drunk friend".

From: Claire M Jordan
[Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
in her early to mid teens.]

 
Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.

I thought Buck was in charge of arranging the Coronation ceremony.... As a Chamberlain?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:03 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed
> > sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a
> > conspiracy by Rivers et al.
>
> As you know, I think a message reached him in the middle of the night to
> tell him that Dorset had raided the Treasure. It certainly *could* have
> reached him. And I suspect that Buckingham was a drunk (although that
> doesn't preclude his being a sociopath as well).
>
> His writing on the three-signatures document is wavering and thready, in an
> age when thready writing must have been very unusual, and looks as if he was
> barely coping with the pen at all.
>
> Butler's chronicle attributes the beginning of the falling out between
> Richard and Buckingham to a supposed incident in which Buckingham sent a
> message to Richard telling him he wasn't going to come to the coronation
> ceremony on account of "sickness", and accto Butler's informant (whoever
> that was) Richard replied "If you don't come to the coronation I shall come
> in person and fetch you", which sounds to me like a real piece of
> conversation. Butler attributes motives to Buckingham (jealousy at seeing
> Richard crowned) which he couldn't possibly have known, but it sounds to me
> like "sober friend losing patience with drunk friend".
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> sex meant) any decent man would have waited.

And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
definitely old enough to know better.

> I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.

I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
executing people.

Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
job of Poet Laureate.

Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
these are all jokes.

Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms.  However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
 
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

> I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> sex meant) any decent man would have waited.

And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
definitely old enough to know better.

> I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.

I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
executing people.

Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
job of Poet Laureate.

Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
these are all jokes.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty
> awful by our terms. However, although I can see that some of those
> "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of
> irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the
> action of a man without honour.

And/or who was too cold or naive or detached to realise that real people
were likely to die as a result. It was a thoroughly dirty trick, yes, but
then he'd been brought up at the French court where dirty tricks seem to
have been the order of the day, and however cold and dishonourable and
sinister it was, it was still a joke imo - like he was daring his nobles to
complain. *I* find it funny, for sure - in a nasty sort of way.

I don't see them as jokes as much playing a horrible and fatal joke on others!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms. However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> From: liz williams
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> > girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> > sex meant) any decent man would have waited.
>
> And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
> experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
> definitely old enough to know better.
>
> > I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>
> I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
> the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
> pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
> worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
> remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
> documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
> inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
> executing people.
>
> Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
> much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
> that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
> a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
> fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
> and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
> job of Poet Laureate.
>
> Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
> sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
> day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
> he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
> two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
> go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
> these are all jokes.
>
>
>
>

Well by doing that it enabled him to make men that had fought and died for their king traitors and maybe some were executed as traitors because of this. ....Even Croyland was shocked by it ..Personally I think it was one of the worse thing Henry ever did..Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms.  However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>  
> From: liz williams
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> > girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> > sex meant) any decent man would have waited.
>
> And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
> experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
> definitely old enough to know better.
>
> > I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>
> I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
> the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
> pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
> worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
> remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
> documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
> inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
> executing people.
>
> Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
> much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
> that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
> a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
> fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
> and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
> job of Poet Laureate.
>
> Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
> sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
> day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
> he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
> two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
> go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
> these are all jokes.
>
>
>
>
>
>

A cruel joker, is usually a very dangerous and unhappy person. I would think despite all the luxury in his life, Henry VIII really did not trust or love his family or friends.


Well by doing that it enabled him to make men that had fought and died for their king traitors and maybe some were executed as traitors because of this. ....Even Croyland was shocked by it ..Personally I think it was one of the worse thing Henry ever did..Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms.ý However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
> ý
> ý
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> ý
> From: liz williams
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> > girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> > sex meant) any decent man would have waited.
>
> And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
> experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
> definitely old enough to know better.
>
> > I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>
> I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
> the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
> pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
> worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
> remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
> documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
> inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
> executing people.
>
> Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
> much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
> that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
> a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
> fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
> and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
> job of Poet Laureate.
>
> Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
> sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
> day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
> he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
> two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
> go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
> these are all jokes.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> A cruel joker, is usually a very dangerous and unhappy person. I would
> think despite all the luxury in his life, Henry VIII really did not trust
> or love his family or friends.

He was ripped away from his mother and sent abroad when he was two or three
years old. And I remember reading (don't ask me where) that like Richard he
had a girl he'd known when they were children and whom he was in love with,
but she was a commoner so marrying her didn't suit France's plans for him.

Yes...casting aside his upbringing for the moment, when he observed how Richard had been betrayed by those very people that he ,Richard,had heaped honours and rewards on (example MB carried AN's train at the coronation etc.,) it would not be surprising if he thought 'well who can you trust?'..what a horrible world they inhabited. Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I would think despite all the luxury in his life, Henry VIII really did not trust or love his family or friends.
>
>
> Well by doing that it enabled him to make men that had fought and died for their king traitors and maybe some were executed as traitors because of this. ....Even Croyland was shocked by it ..Personally I think it was one of the worse thing Henry ever did..Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms. However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
> > Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> > Â
> > From: liz williams
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> > > I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> > > girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> > > sex meant) any decent man would have waited.
> >
> > And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
> > experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
> > definitely old enough to know better.
> >
> > > I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >
> > I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
> > the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
> > pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
> > worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
> > remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
> > documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
> > inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
> > executing people.
> >
> > Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
> > much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
> > that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
> > a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
> > fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
> > and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
> > job of Poet Laureate.
> >
> > Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
> > sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
> > day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
> > he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
> > two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
> > go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
> > these are all jokes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I almost posted that as well. It had to have been so difficult for the royalty of those times. No one could be trusted. Your family was always in danger. Some died young and brutally, and most seemed to send their children away, or to have very little to do with them. That does not bode well for a well adjusted child.

On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:55 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

> A cruel joker, is usually a very dangerous and unhappy person. I would
> think despite all the luxury in his life, Henry VIII really did not trust
> or love his family or friends.

He was ripped away from his mother and sent abroad when he was two or three
years old. And I remember reading (don't ask me where) that like Richard he
had a girl he'd known when they were children and whom he was in love with,
but she was a commoner so marrying her didn't suit France's plans for him.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Yes...casting aside his upbringing for the moment, when he observed how
> Richard had been betrayed by those very people that he ,Richard,had heaped
> honours and rewards on (example MB carried AN's train at the coronation
> etc.,) it would not be surprising if he thought 'well who can you
> trust?'..

I reckon he sent Northumberland to collect taxes *deliberately*, knowing the
north would kill him, because he reckoned Northumberland's reason for
betraying Richard had been selfish and venal (ie without the complicated
family ties which probably compelled the Stanleys) and so he thought "A man
who betrays one king will betray another."

> what a horrible world they inhabited. Eileen

Definitely. And Richard, poor boy, although still probably a wee bit of a
thug by modern standards, was easily 300 years ahead of his time. He would
have fitted perfectly into the 18th C world of coffee-shop debates and
anti-slavery campaigns: he would have made a wonderful early human-rights
lawyer.

[To be fair, Elizabeth I was also ahead of her time, or tried to be.]

Absolutely!......rather cold blooded imho....."Off you go.....byeeee dont come backeeee"
Eileen




--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> I reckon he sent Northumberland to collect taxes *deliberately*, knowing the
> north would kill him,
>

My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers.  I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close.  H. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 18:59
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also  whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard.  H     

Carol responds:

Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.

But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)

Carol

Very good question! As has been pointed out somewhere that he resembled Clarence. Is there any truth to that?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
> given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 18:59
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard. H    Â
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.
>
> But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Hmmm...Henry the Seventh's jokes would not get him a Friars Roast much less a covetted gig on the old Johnny Carson show. Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see them as jokes as much playing a horrible and fatal joke on others!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Well it is relative of course and I know that most of them were pretty awful by our terms. However, although I can see that some of those "jokes" might appeal to him (and to others with a developed sense of irony) I think his dating his reign to the 21st August was purely the action of a man without honour.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 21:14
> > Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> > From: liz williams
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> > > I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year
> > > girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what
> > > sex meant) any decent man would have waited.
> >
> > And Edmund was about 26 at the time, so we're not talking about two kids
> > experimenting together. Unless he had learning difficulties, he was
> > definitely old enough to know better.
> >
> > > I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >
> > I wouldn't call Henry VII especially unpleasant - not by the standards of
> > the day. He wasn't as nice as Richard, of course, but Richard was unusually
> > pleasant for the times he lived in. I don't think Henry was necessarily any
> > worse, as a person, than Edward IV who employed the notorious Tiptoft, and I
> > remember reading (and I believe the source was actual contemporary legal
> > documents) that in his later life Edward went a little loopy and started
> > inventing, or at least authorising, exotically bizarre amd painful ways of
> > executing people.
> >
> > Of course Henry was extremely dodgy and a high-class crook, but he wasn't
> > much keener on killing kids than Richard was and the long delay suggests
> > that he executed Warbeck and Warwick only very reluctantly. Although he was
> > a skinflint he was capable of great if whimsical generosity - he once gave a
> > fortune to some village children whose singing pleased him, for example -
> > and whether or not Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves his father did invent the
> > job of Poet Laureate.
> >
> > Also he had a well-developed sense of humour, even if some of his jokes were
> > sinister ones which proved fatal for other people. Dating his reign to the
> > day before the battle; getting people to call him Majesty and Highness while
> > he dressed in clerk's clothing; ordering his nobles to ride through London
> > two to a horse; ordering Northumberland, the noble who betrayed Richard, to
> > go to Yorkshire and collect taxes; employing Lambert Simnel as a cook -
> > these are all jokes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Absolutely!......rather cold blooded imho....."Off you go.....byeeee dont
> come backeeee"
Eileen

Oh yes. One of my cycle of poems about Ricardian characters (and which is
called Necessity is the Mother of Invasion)describes the young Henry as

... scared,
Skittish, wistful, whimsical
And cold;

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
> later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.

Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.

I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 22:47
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

Very good question! As has been pointed out somewhere that he resembled Clarence. Is there any truth to that?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Hilary Jones mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
> given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 18:59
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard. H    Â
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.
>
> But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:

> [snip] I think his mental state as king is summed up by the last lines of the prayer in his Book of Hours:
>
> "Lord Jesus Christ, deign to free my, your servant King Richard, from every tribulation, sorrow and trouble in which I am placed . . . hear me, in the name of all your goodness, for which I give thanks, and for all the gifts granted to me, because you made me from nothing and redeemed me out of your bounteous love and pity from eternal damnation to promising eternal life."

Carol again:

Yikes. "Deign to free my" should be "deign to free me," of course. I copied and pasted the prayer from the American branch website. Webmaster, if you're here on this forum, can you fix that typo for me?

It's from this page:

http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html

Thanks,
Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

>
> > When this prayer was recorded, I don't know, but I suspect that it was after the death of his son and possibly after the death of his wife.
>
> As I understand it, it's believed to be a prayer intended for a woman in childbirth and probably originally written into the book for Ann's prospective use but she died without ever filling in her name, so he wrote his in instead. Then MB scribbled him out and wrote herself in in his place. [snip]

Carol responds:

I really don't think so. It's in his Book of Hours with his name. As I understand it, part of the prayer is a common one in such books and part is peculiarly his. (I'd have to check my copy of "The Hours of Richard III," which I don't have time to do now, to see what Sutton and Visser-Fuchs say about it.)

But other parts of the prayer sound nothing like what a woman in childbirth would pray. It talks sending about Saint Michael to his aid against his enemies "and bring to nothing the evil plans they are making or planning to make against me." Sounds to me as if he's concerned with plotters or invading would-be usurpers.

Also, Margaret Beaufort did scratch out his name in one place and insert hers, but not in that prayer, IIRC. If I have time, I'll look it up, but I'm beginning to think that I'll never get caught up with posting or anything else.

Carol

There is picture of a fat guy who is mooted as Buckingham. I will find a link.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:17 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
> > later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
>
> Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
> Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
> love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
>
>

Here is a link to Buck's image......... not very fetching, is he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Stafford.jpg

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:17 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
> > later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
>
> Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
> Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
> love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> I really don't think so. It's in his Book of Hours with his name. As I
> understand it, part of the prayer is a common one in such books and part
> is peculiarly his. (I'd have to check my copy of "The Hours of Richard
> III," which I don't have time to do now, to see what Sutton and
> Visser-Fuchs say about it.)

P T-C in her catalogue says that the book belonged originally to the
Warwicks and may have been given to Richard by his wife (or during his
boyhood stay at Middleham which she again says was between the ages of nine
and thirteen) - the idea that he might have inherited it from Ann after her
death may be my own. P T-C says "The source of this prayer goes back to the
early Fathers of the Church. It is traditionally attributed to St Anselm,
and was originally intended for women in labour."

> But other parts of the prayer sound nothing like what a woman in
> childbirth would pray. It talks sending about Saint Michael to his aid
> against his enemies "and bring to nothing the evil plans they are making
> or planning to make against me." Sounds to me as if he's concerned with
> plotters or invading would-be usurpers.

He also asks to be freed from false accusation (relevant) and from slavery
and poverty, which are rather less relevant. It seems to be a standard
boilerplate list of tribulations, although he'd have to be a hypocrite to
pray it if the accusations agaisnt him were true.

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Here is a link to Buck's image......... not very fetching, is he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Stafford.jpg

Well, it's an 18th C image but looks as though it's copied from a painting
which might be period. He doesn't look loike Edward and probably not like
George or Edmund either because he has a distinctive face very different
from the York borthers. So that's one theory out the window.

He does look as though he probably was a drunk, though - he looks blousy and
unshaven.

Hilary wrote:
>
> Butler's chronicle attributes the beginning of the falling out between Richard and Buckingham to a supposed incident in which Buckingham sent a message to Richard telling him he wasn't going to come to the coronation ceremony on account of "sickness", and accto Butler's informant (whoever that was) Richard replied "If you don't come to the coronation I shall come in person and fetch you", which sounds to me like a real piece of conversation. Butler attributes motives to Buckingham (jealousy at seeing Richard crowned) which he couldn't possibly have known, but it sounds to me like "sober friend losing patience with drunk friend".
>
Carol responds:

That sounds very unreliable considering that Buckingham had just made speeches saying that Richard should be king and had the high honor of carrying Richard's train at the coronation. (Of course, Margaret Beaufort had the honor of carrying Anne's train and we see where *that* led.) Buckingham's splendid robes are described in the coronation accounts. I think he also carried a scepter or mace (no time to check now) that ought to have been carried by the Duke of Norfolk, who received a different honor instead.

In any case, it sounds as if Butler (do you mean Sir Richard Baker?) is mistaken here. Buckingham was still very much in Richard's trust at this time and receiving great honors from him, including the title to the Bohun lands (to be confirmed by Parliament).

Carol

Liz wrote:

Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.

Carol responds:

Wasn't she actually fourteen when Henry was born? Still, that's very young and she may have been thirteen when the marriage was consummated. It must have been a difficult birth that caused internal damage since she never had more children despite three more marriages.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

> That sounds very unreliable considering that Buckingham had just made
> speeches saying that Richard should be king and had the high honor of
> carrying Richard's train at the coronation.

Mm, but being all enthusiastic and involved and then suddenly trying to drop
out at the last minute and having to be rounded up is exactly the sort of
thing chronic drunks do. If he *was* a drunk then after making the great
speeches he probably went and celebrated, and then woke up with a thundering
hangover.

> In any case, it sounds as if Butler (do you mean Sir Richard Baker?)

Yes, sorry.

> is mistaken here. Buckingham was still very much in Richard's trust at
> this time and receiving great honors from him, including the title to the
> Bohun lands (to be confirmed by Parliament).

Oh, he's not suggesting that this was the point at which Richard went off
Buckingham (although it suggests irritation), but that this was the point at
which Buckingham began secretly to resent Richard.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Wasn't she actually fourteen when Henry was born?

Thirteen - I was a year out. She didn't turn fourteen until her son was
four months old.

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Mm, but being all enthusiastic and involved and then suddenly trying to
> drop
out at the last minute and having to be rounded up is exactly the sort of
thing chronic drunks do. If he *was* a drunk then after making the great
speeches he probably went and celebrated, and then woke up with a thundering
hangover.

Actually, *if* Buckingham was a drunk then the more important his rôle in
the coronation, the more likely Baker's scenario becomes, because if he
called in sickwith a hangover Richard would be left saying "I don't care if
your leg's fallen off, I can*not* replace you at two hours' notice!"

It may not be infertility. If I had been the one to be married off as a prepubescent and become a mother at the age when I was supposed to be screaming like an idiot at Justin Bieber concerts, I'd have started carrying a big, nasty, wicked-sharp knife to show any subsequent husbands.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Liz wrote:
>
> Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wasn't she actually fourteen when Henry was born? Still, that's very young and she may have been thirteen when the marriage was consummated. It must have been a difficult birth that caused internal damage since she never had more children despite three more marriages.
>
> Carol
>

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Thirteen - I was a year out. She didn't turn fourteen until her son was
four months old.

Oh, and unless Henry was a premie she must have got pregnant when she was
twelve. And even in the unlikely event that she was fully developed at that
age and really did want Edmund, that would still be tragic, because her
austerity and lack of other children in later life would then suggest that
she had lost the love of her life when she was thirteen and probably never
loved again. Which would maket the Stanley brothers' willingness to betray
their king in order to protect their wife/sister-in-law from another
beareavement understandable imo, if regrettable.

I've had a new thought about Richard's psychology. We know that when he was
Duke he was widely praised and admired, and that the people of York loved
him. The presence in Penrith Castle of a carved graffito pledging
allegiance to him suggests that like Nelson he may well have attracted not
just admiration but a rock-star-like adoration.

Assuming this is so, I wonder if his innocence and his willingness to trust
Buckingham etc came about in part because he was so used to being the centre
of perfectly genuine adoration that it had never occurred to him that
someone might feign admiration whilst plotting against him, and he didn't
know how to spot it.

As regards whether he really was tense and twitchy, something we haven't
considered is that he was a man who was used to spending a significant part
of his life in the saddle in all weathers, and now suddenly he had been
forced into what amounted to a desk job. It wouldn't be surprising if he
ended up very restless and twitchy, because he would be like an active dog
shut in a small flat.

And I still say that his expression looks like he needs glasses, but it's
occurred to me that this was probably due to basic eyestrain. We know he
was doing a massive amount of paperwork, and a lot of that must have had to
be done by candlelight.

I thought the answer was that the instant news of the death of Edward IV hit the countryside, Buckingham wrote Richard of Gloucester, asking what he could do to help. Richard told him to bring all the muscle he could pack and meet him up north, which Buckingham did. He was Richard's good right hand up until Richard decided to send Morton to Buckingham's place to wait out house arrest.

Buckingham is kind of a cipher, the way I read the historical record; he seems to have been happily bumbling obscurely around Wales, avoiding his wife, for years until Edward died, and then he just... became the vice president of the entire damn country. He was the one who made what was by all accounts an utterly magnificent speech putting Richard forward as the true king of England. It certainly blew back the ears of the noted legislative and judicial audience who heard it. That implies some kind of preexisting talent and no little knowledge of both law and rhetoric.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Very good question! As has been pointed out somewhere that he resembled Clarence. Is there any truth to that?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
> > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 18:59
> > Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gauge whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers, one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham also whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard. H    Â
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.
> >
> > But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.

Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.

It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> in her early to mid teens.]
>
>  
> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>
>

He had a definite grudge about Edward because he felt he'd deprived him of some of the Bohun lands. Edward didn't like him or trust him either and only used him as Constable of the Tower when Clarence was being disposed of (which I think tells you a lot). As for great speeches, I can think of someone over here who made one of those a few years' ago at a certain funeral but I'll not start that thread off again.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:16
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

I thought the answer was that the instant news of the death of Edward IV hit the countryside, Buckingham wrote Richard of Gloucester, asking what he could do to help. Richard told him to bring all the muscle he could pack and meet him up north, which Buckingham did. He was Richard's good right hand up until Richard decided to send Morton to Buckingham's place to wait out house arrest.

Buckingham is kind of a cipher, the way I read the historical record; he seems to have been happily bumbling obscurely around Wales, avoiding his wife, for years until Edward died, and then he just... became the vice president of the entire damn country. He was the one who made what was by all accounts an utterly magnificent speech putting Richard forward as the true king of England. It certainly blew back the ears of the noted legislative and judicial audience who heard it. That implies some kind of preexisting talent and no little knowledge of both law and rhetoric.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Very good question! As has been pointed out somewhere that he resembled Clarence. Is there any truth to that?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
him,
> > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 18:59
> > Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Turning to another bit of this analysis, and I do apologise if it's been mentioned earlier but there are so many posts, could we gaugeà whether Richard's uncertain childhood made him easy prey for a presumed sociopath like Buckingham? At the very point when he'd lost both brothers,à one at least who was the focal point of his life, Buckingham swoops, re-assures him, tells him he's marvellous, has been all along, and profers advice. Sociopaths love to give advice, I speak from experience. Buckingham alsoà whispers in his ear and profers advice to get rid of Rivers, and down the line, Hastings. And of course, in the end turns on him for his own advantage, leaving a yet more insecure and devastated Richard.à Hà à à à Ã
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Do we know enough about Buckingham to classify him as "a presumed sociopath"? I suspect that Buckingham had some sort of proof of a conspiracy by Rivers et al. (such as a letter to Buckingham's Woodville wife from her sister Elizabeth Woodville) that prompted Richard to take action. If Mancini is right about the correspondence with Hastings, Richard probably already had a good idea of what was going on in London (illegal council proceedings and all). What his motives were later (when he betrayed Richard) are a different matter.
> >
> > But we're back to the question of messages none of which survive. I, personally, don't think that Richard would have arrested Rivers et al. without grounds--though, of course, Rivers sending the king on to Stony Stratford rather than having him meet Richard at Northampton as planned is in itself suspicious, suggesting that the Woodvilles wanted to control him themselves and thwart Richard's influence and powers as Protector. (I think that Elizabeth Woodville's scurrying into sanctuary the moment she heard that Richard had taken custody of his nephew indicates the same thing. The innocent don't fear reprisal from a man with a reputation for justice who has hitherto done them no harm.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort


> Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as
> incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows
> how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over
> time,

Actually she was twelve when she fell pregnant, just about a month short of
thirteen - I'd miscalculated and got her age out by a year. I'm not sure if
you're right or whether it's just that people were expected to be mature a
lot younger. Richard, after all, commanded an army when he was twelve so
although standard practice was not to engage in sex until the bride was
about fifteen, they wouldn't have thought of twelve as an actual child.

[It's noteworthy that in Jewish tradition boys are considered men at
thirteen and girls are women at twelve - but even in the past when very
young marriages were permitted it was against Jewish law to have sex with
your partner before their pubic hair came in.]

Do we know what the attitide of the day was to people who had sex with
actual children, I mean people *they* thought of as children?

Carol,
 
This wasn't my snip. Don't know who it came from yet. H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 0:55
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

Hilary wrote:
>
> Butler's chronicle attributes the beginning of the falling out between Richard and Buckingham to a supposed incident in which Buckingham sent a message to Richard telling him he wasn't going to come to the coronation ceremony on account of "sickness", and accto Butler's informant (whoever that was) Richard replied "If you don't come to the coronation I shall come in person and fetch you", which sounds to me like a real piece of conversation. Butler attributes motives to Buckingham (jealousy at seeing Richard crowned) which he couldn't possibly have known, but it sounds to me like "sober friend losing patience with drunk friend".
>
Carol responds:

That sounds very unreliable considering that Buckingham had just made speeches saying that Richard should be king and had the high honor of carrying Richard's train at the coronation. (Of course, Margaret Beaufort had the honor of carrying Anne's train and we see where *that* led.) Buckingham's splendid robes are described in the coronation accounts. I think he also carried a scepter or mace (no time to check now) that ought to have been carried by the Duke of Norfolk, who received a different honor instead.

In any case, it sounds as if Butler (do you mean Sir Richard Baker?) is mistaken here. Buckingham was still very much in Richard's trust at this time and receiving great honors from him, including the title to the Bohun lands (to be confirmed by Parliament).

Carol

I read, a gabillion years ago, that the Western notion of childhood as a special stage of human development, deserving of protection and devoted to play and school, came about somewhere between the Federalist period and the Victorian age. In an agricultural society (which ours was, worldwide, until recently), children were extra hands for sowin' and reapin', not magical creatures who delighted their parents by wondering why the sky is blue. Child mortality was significant enough that parents had to steel themselves against loving their children. In a society marked by the need for laboring hands and the certainty of losing a number of young children to disease, sending your matrimonial assets off to seal an alliance by reproducing in their turn must have been a huge temptation, no matter how shockingly young they were. The very thought of Anne Mowbray and Richard of York getting married while their combined ages were nearly in single digits just skeeves me out completely.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
> > Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as
> > incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows
> > how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over
> > time,
>
> Actually she was twelve when she fell pregnant, just about a month short of
> thirteen - I'd miscalculated and got her age out by a year. I'm not sure if
> you're right or whether it's just that people were expected to be mature a
> lot younger. Richard, after all, commanded an army when he was twelve so
> although standard practice was not to engage in sex until the bride was
> about fifteen, they wouldn't have thought of twelve as an actual child.
>
> [It's noteworthy that in Jewish tradition boys are considered men at
> thirteen and girls are women at twelve - but even in the past when very
> young marriages were permitted it was against Jewish law to have sex with
> your partner before their pubic hair came in.]
>
> Do we know what the attitide of the day was to people who had sex with
> actual children, I mean people *they* thought of as children?
>

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 23:13
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Oh yes. One of my cycle of poems about Ricardian characters (and which is
> called Necessity is the Mother of Invasion)describes the young Henry as

> ... scared,
> Skittish, wistful, whimsical
> And cold;


I rather like that.

Jonathan


________________________________



 
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

> Absolutely!......rather cold blooded imho....."Off you go.....byeeee dont
> come backeeee"
Eileen

Hilary Jones wrote:

"My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a
few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a
hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham.
Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in
the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the
psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace
Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned
on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message
route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting,
but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"

Doug here:
Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption by
Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
"illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal bloodline. We
know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so perhaps
he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
solidarity", I guess.
One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences with
his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I recall,
Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E of
Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided whenever
possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that* was
a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also* disapproved
of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based on
Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
Doug

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [To be fair, Elizabeth I was also ahead of her time, or tried to be.]

Carol responds:

Unless you count sponsoring Sir Francis Drake's piracy of Spanish ships to finance the treasury. These days, robbery by governments is more subtle (taxes).

Carol

It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a
> few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a
> hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham.
> Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in
> the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the
> psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace
> Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned
> on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message
> route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting,
> but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
> given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
>
> Doug here:
> Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption by
> Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal bloodline. We
> know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so perhaps
> he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> solidarity", I guess.
> One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences with
> his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I recall,
> Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E of
> Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided whenever
> possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that* was
> a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also* disapproved
> of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based on
> Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> Doug
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers.  I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him, given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close.  H. 

Carol responds:

Well, there's the theory that Buckingham reminded Richard of George, but I don't know of any direct evidence for that. It may have been actual proof of a Woodville conspiracy rather than power of personality that convinced Richard to arrest Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn. In any case, Buckingham showed up just at the point when Richard needed an ally, he may have brought some key information that led to the arrest of Rivers, et al., and he was certainly of the dwindling blood royal, a fact that was clearly important to Richard (and to Buckingham himself). Also, he was the most important peer in the realm next to Richard himself, yet he'd been given almost no role in government by Edward IV. (Did Edward know or suspect something that Richard didn't?) Richard may have felt that Buckingham had been unjustly pushed aside and tried to make up for it by giving him rewards and offices that he thought should have been his under Edward. Also, of course, he was rewarding him for his seeming loyalty at Stony Stratford and in council, supporting both his protectorship and later, his kingship. How much influence Buckingham actually had, we don't know, but seemingly enough that Hastings resented and possibly feared him (and no doubt envied his rewards as well since his own were meager by comparison. If we take the Hastings plot as real, and I do, Buckingham's death was included in it along with Richard's.) We don't know how Buckingham felt about his Woodville wife, but Richard may well have viewed him as another Woodville victim or pawn.

That Buckingham was mercurial and ambitious like George of Clarence seems undeniable, but whether he was plotting all along to betray Richard or was at first just trying to be on the winning side (a la the Stanleys) is anybody's guess. He may have promoted Richard's kingship knowing that Edward V would blame him as much as Richard for the death of Anthony Woodville. He certainly didn't want Henry Tudor as king no matter what More would have us believe. I do think that if anyone killed Richard's nephews, it was probably Buckingham, who, as Constable of England, had access to the Tower and would not have been refused entrance by Brackenbury, Constable of the Tower.

The problem is that we have so few facts to go on and only the reports of ill-informed and biased sources to go on.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.

Carol responds:

One more thought on this--and I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to figure out Richard's attraction to Buckingham--Richard had friends his own age but none who were his social equal or near equal. And many of the peers of the realm, IIRC, were either much younger or much older than Richard, were not of the blood royal, or were tainted by Lancastrian associations. (Since Buckingham was a child when his Lancastrian father died, Richard would have considered him Yorkist.) So in that sense, though Buckingham was slightly younger rather than slightly older than George, he may well have seemed like a brother substitute regardless of whether there was any likeness in looks or personality between him and George.

Someone, I think it was Ishita, asked if there was any portrait of Buckingham. No contemporary likeness exists, unfortunately. The ghastly Wikipedia illustration, which makes him look like a fat, unshaven thug, is eighteenth century.

Carol

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I thought the answer was that the instant news of the death of Edward IV hit the countryside, Buckingham wrote Richard of Gloucester, asking what he could do to help. Richard told him to bring all the muscle he could pack and meet him up north, which Buckingham did. He was Richard's good right hand up until Richard decided to send Morton to Buckingham's place to wait out house arrest.
>
> Buckingham is kind of a cipher, the way I read the historical record; he seems to have been happily bumbling obscurely around Wales, avoiding his wife, for years until Edward died, and then he just... became the vice president of the entire damn country. He was the one who made what was by all accounts an utterly magnificent speech putting Richard forward as the true king of England. It certainly blew back the ears of the noted legislative and judicial audience who heard it. That implies some kind of preexisting talent and no little knowledge of both law and rhetoric.

Carol responds:

The actual correspondence doesn't exist; all we have is Mancini (I don't think Croyland discusses it). Apparently, though, rather than asking Buckingham to "bring all the muscle he could," Richard asked him to limit his escort to match his own, which was, IIRC, three hundred men in mourning, not armor. The arrest of Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn was achieved without the use of force.

As for Buckingham's speech blowing the ears off the audience, it seems likely, as Audrey Williamson notes, that his listeners were already convinced. Whether they believed the precontract story or not, most would have wanted a man whose bloodline, experience, and integrity were unquestioned to lead them and prevent the civil war that was almost inevitable under a minor king, especially given the factionalism of Edward IV's court. (Buckingham had never before delivered a speech, and his "eloquence" apparently consists of never stopping once to spit!)

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> I really don't think so. It's in his Book of Hours with his name. As I understand it, part of the prayer is a common one in such books and part is peculiarly his. (I'd have to check my copy of "The Hours of Richard III," which I don't have time to do now, to see what Sutton and Visser-Fuchs say about it.)
>
> But other parts of the prayer sound nothing like what a woman in childbirth would pray. It talks sending about Saint Michael to his aid against his enemies "and bring to nothing the evil plans they are making or planning to make against me." Sounds to me as if he's concerned with plotters or invading would-be usurpers.
>
> Also, Margaret Beaufort did scratch out his name in one place and insert hers, but not in that prayer, IIRC. If I have time, I'll look it up, but I'm beginning to think that I'll never get caught up with posting or anything else.

Carol again:

Okay, I checked last night. Someone did cross out "Ricardus" but not "regem" in the prayer, which suggests that it was not Margaret Beaufort. Versions of the same prayer (which is in Latin and much longer than the excerpt usually quoted) are found in the Books of Hours of Ferdinand of Aragon and Maximillian, both rulers like Richard who experienced similar troubles. However, Richard's version is unique in having three references to "dolor" (grief) and in the inclusion of the warrior saint, Saint Michael. Essentially, the prayer asks God to save the person praying from adversity or rumors spread by enemies and cites various biblical accounts as examples of similar deliverance (including Noah's flood, Daniel in the lion's den, and the apocryphal story of Susannah and the Elders where Susannah is falsely accused of adultery, IIRC).

The rubric (explanation or introductory commentary) to the prayer is missing in Richard's book, along with the first few lines of the prayer, but rubrics for other versions of the prayer suggest that reading this prayer thirty days in a row with a penitent heart and with no unconfessed sins will bring an end to the adversity. Sadly, it didn't work for Richard, unless you count death as an end to suffering.

The prayer was copied for him into his own Book of Hours with his own name included twice in near-perfect Latin in a very neat scribal hand. Sutton and Visser-Fuchs suggest that it could have been done by his confessor, John Roby, probably at Richard's request. That makes sense to me but there's no way to prove it.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Richard asked him to limit his escort to match his own, which was, IIRC,
> three hundred men in mourning, not armor.

300 "gentlemen", wasn't it? I mean, it would be 300 nobs plus their
servants and baggage-train, so all told probably about 700 people.

Whatever Richard's 'Personal Qualities,' He had lost his Father, His Three Brothers, Warwick & His Wife & Son.
[As I understand it, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward, Not Richard and was over the Woodville marriage.]

  Indeed his personal 'Circle' was progressively, severely 'Depleted'. 
In earlier years we had a kind of  'Band of brothers' Plus of course, Warwick in a kind of 'Mountbatten' role.

Richard may well have been a person slow to make friends, indeed it appears possible, to say the least. 

As we know the 'Top Job' brings 'The Loneliness of Command'  & these may well ALL be contributory factors. 

Richard spent a long time as 'Lord of the North' as a result many of his 'Circle' would have been centred here. [Comments from the City of York post his death tend to support this view.]

I have earlier proposed a possibility of a 'Degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 23:17
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Hilary Jones
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
>> later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
>
>Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
>Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
>love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Here is a link to Buck's image......... not very fetching, is he?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Stafford.jpg

Carol responds:

But also not authentic. That's an eighteenth-century drawing not based, as far as I know, on a fifteenth-century original. The same thing seems to have happened to him as happened to all of Richard's associates--they're all depicted in the worst light because of their association with a "tyrant," "usurper," and "murderer"--even Buckingham, who later betrayed him (though "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" depicts him as an innocent victim). Look at Richard's "portraits" for the same period, which also depict him as vicious and much older than he really was. Buckingham looks forty-something in this "portrait" but was really only twenty-eight when he was executed.

Carol

It is interesting that Lord Nelson, Confronted with the stresses of Trafalgar, Offered a prayer, in some respects.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 23:29
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Carol earlier:
>
>> [snip] I think his mental state as king is summed up by the last lines of the prayer in his Book of Hours:
>>
>> "Lord Jesus Christ, deign to free my, your servant King Richard, from every tribulation, sorrow and trouble in which I am placed . . . hear me, in the name of all your goodness, for which I give thanks, and for all the gifts granted to me, because you made me from nothing and redeemed me out of your bounteous love and pity from eternal damnation to promising eternal life."
>
>Carol again:
>
>Yikes. "Deign to free my" should be "deign to free me," of course. I copied and pasted the prayer from the American branch website. Webmaster, if you're here on this forum, can you fix that typo for me?
>
>It's from this page:
>
>http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html
>
>Thanks,
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol,
>  
> This wasn't my snip. Don't know who it came from yet. H

Carol responds:

Oops. Sorry. I think it was Claire. I do try to be careful to credit the right person, but maybe my brain was asleep!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Okay, I checked last night. Someone did cross out "Ricardus" but not
> "regem" in the prayer, which suggests that it was not Margaret Beaufort.

"In the honour of God and St Edmund, pray for Margaret Richmond" is written
on an end fly-leaf.

> The prayer was copied for him into his own Book of Hours with his own name
> included twice in near-perfect Latin in a very neat scribal hand.

P T-C says "in a rough hand imitating the earlier script of the book", but
does believe it was written in for Richard himself rather than the previous
owner (probably Ann), so you're probably right that it was his personally
and had drifted from its original use (accto P C-T) as a prayer for women in
childbirth. I wish I had a photo' of the prayer (as opposed to the
illuminations, which are in the catalogue) to see whether Richard's name is
in the same hand as the body of the prayer or not.

The full text of the prayer in Latin and in English is in the back of the
catalogue.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
> Oh, he's not suggesting that this was the point at which Richard went off Buckingham (although it suggests irritation), but that this was the point at which Buckingham began secretly to resent Richard.

Carol responds:

Which is based, I think, on More, who has Buckingham looking away when the crown is placed on Richard's head (despite his active support for Richard's coronation). Wise after the fact, I think.

I don't recall whether Baker had access to the Croyland chronicle, but it wouldn't have helped him here as it doesn't describe the coronation, only mentioning it in passing. (He wouldn't have had access to Mancini, who doesn't mention the coronation at all.)

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Actually, *if* Buckingham was a drunk then the more important his rôle in the coronation, the more likely Baker's scenario becomes, because if he called in sick with a hangover Richard would be left saying "I don't care if your leg's fallen off, I can*not* replace you at two hours' notice!"
>
Carol responds:

But there's no historical basis for Baker's scenario at all!

Carol

Support [& Open Demonstrations of Support] especially for a new regime would have been very important.

'Oath's would have been Sworn' and to the 'Contemporary Mind' these would have been held in high regard.

Retainers would have been included.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 1:35
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:17 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> Mm, but being all enthusiastic and involved and then suddenly trying to
>> drop
>out at the last minute and having to be rounded up is exactly the sort of
>thing chronic drunks do. If he *was* a drunk then after making the great
>speeches he probably went and celebrated, and then woke up with a thundering
>hangover.
>
>Actually, *if* Buckingham was a drunk then the more important his rôle in
>the coronation, the more likely Baker's scenario becomes, because if he
>called in sickwith a hangover Richard would be left saying "I don't care if
>your leg's fallen off, I can*not* replace you at two hours' notice!"
>
>
>
>
>

Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
> 
>The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>
>Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>
>It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>
>--- In , liz williams wrote:
>>
>> From: Claire M Jordan
>> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>> in her early to mid teens.]
>>
>>  
>> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, we have thought when we discussed this before, that it could be the ressemblance to Clarence. Why I brought it up again is that the new analysis of Richard re-inforces that he probably could have become easy prey to a more forceful, supposedly charismatic person - one whom Edward didn't trust. And Edward, despite the Woodvilles, was quite a shrewd politician when it came to judging people. If he hadn't died so early our friend Morton would probably easily have been bought off with a higher archbishopric, or a cardinal's hat. It was not below Edward to do things like that - some would say the easy, lazy way out. 
Yes that portrait is pretty awful; like the similar supposed one of Clarence.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:36
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.

Carol responds:

One more thought on this--and I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to figure out Richard's attraction to Buckingham--Richard had friends his own age but none who were his social equal or near equal. And many of the peers of the realm, IIRC, were either much younger or much older than Richard, were not of the blood royal, or were tainted by Lancastrian associations. (Since Buckingham was a child when his Lancastrian father died, Richard would have considered him Yorkist.) So in that sense, though Buckingham was slightly younger rather than slightly older than George, he may well have seemed like a brother substitute regardless of whether there was any likeness in looks or personality between him and George.

Someone, I think it was Ishita, asked if there was any portrait of Buckingham. No contemporary likeness exists, unfortunately. The ghastly Wikipedia illustration, which makes him look like a fat, unshaven thug, is eighteenth century.

Carol

I do like your idea of the Mountabatten role for Warwick. I think that's probably not far off, particularly as Warwick was also Cicely's nephew and she seemed to have a soft spot for him.



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

Whatever Richard's 'Personal Qualities,' He had lost his Father, His Three Brothers, Warwick & His Wife & Son.
[As I understand it, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward, Not Richard and was over the Woodville marriage.]

  Indeed his personal 'Circle' was progressively, severely 'Depleted'. 
In earlier years we had a kind of  'Band of brothers' Plus of course, Warwick in a kind of 'Mountbatten' role.

Richard may well have been a person slow to make friends, indeed it appears possible, to say the least. 

As we know the 'Top Job' brings 'The Loneliness of Command'  & these may well ALL be contributory factors. 

Richard spent a long time as 'Lord of the North' as a result many of his 'Circle' would have been centred here. [Comments from the City of York post his death tend to support this view.]

I have earlier proposed a possibility of a 'Degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 23:17
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>From: Hilary Jones
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>> What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
>> later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
>
>Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
>Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
>love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
>
>
>
>
>

Thing is, though, I don't think Buckingham would have needed Morton to
remind him of such a thing (though Morton may very well have been able to
play him, but even then....).

For what it's worth, I'll throw in the reasoning I used for my play,
_Loyalty Lies_, which I drafted in around 2000, and which tossed its
reasoning before the public in a small production a couple of years later.
In the line of action and reasoning I used, the friction and competition
between Hastings and Buckingham for Richard's protection/favor, etc., leads
to Buckingham convincing Richard that Hastings was morally responsible for
Edward's death (by way of indulging his appetites as a distraction from
condemning George to death). It is because of this that Hastings turns
against Richard (but not toward the Woodvilles) and Richard condemns him in
the way he does. Morton, who is no dummy, deduces this and, at Brecon,
corrals Buckingham into supporting Henry Tudor on the strength of being
able show Buckingham that Richard could very well find out Buckingham's
manipulations and that Richard might do to Buckingham what he did to
Hastings.

It worked in the context of the play, and might be worth batting around
(especially since I have to re-write both my Ricardian plays now!!).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think
> that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on
> Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to
> Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon
> where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him
> against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne
> too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given
> over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this
> a
> > few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such
> a
> > hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for
> Buckingham.
> > Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part
> in
> > the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as
> the
> > psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly
> embrace
> > Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have
> leaned
> > on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> > want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the
> message
> > route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> > Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> > Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were
> plotting,
> > but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
> him,
> > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption
> by
> > Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> > "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> > well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal
> bloodline. We
> > know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so
> perhaps
> > he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> > solidarity", I guess.
> > One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences
> with
> > his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> > sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I
> recall,
> > Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E
> of
> > Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided
> whenever
> > possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that*
> was
> > a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also*
> disapproved
> > of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based
> on
> > Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>

Yes, I agree with both of you. We can only ever guess, but my guess is that Buckingham still harboured a grudge against Edward, somehow down the line realised that Richard wasn't going to be quite as malleable as he perhaps once thought (perhaps he thought E's deputy was a northern innocent) and was got at by Morton, who fanned the flames of his greed. We shall probably never know but I find it one of the most fascinating parts of the whole story, including the fact that Buckingham might have killed the princes to get in with Richard and it badly misfired.  I still hover somewhere between that and that they did get abroad. I think the latter was almost certainly Richard's intention. H


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:16
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a
> few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a
> hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham.
> Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in
> the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the
> psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace
> Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned
> on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message
> route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting,
> but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
> given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
>
> Doug here:
> Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption by
> Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal bloodline. We
> know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so perhaps
> he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> solidarity", I guess.
> One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences with
> his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I recall,
> Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E of
> Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided whenever
> possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that* was
> a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also* disapproved
> of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based on
> Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> Doug
>

I'm very much where you are - Morton was an opportunist who I guess was good at detecting weaknesses in others. He'd been around a long time and seen a lot in both Courts. And somewhere in all this we've got Catesby, who worked for all of them and Clarence as well. Fascinating stuff - quite as good as the machinations of H8's Court.


________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

Thing is, though, I don't think Buckingham would have needed Morton to
remind him of such a thing (though Morton may very well have been able to
play him, but even then....).

For what it's worth, I'll throw in the reasoning I used for my play,
_Loyalty Lies_, which I drafted in around 2000, and which tossed its
reasoning before the public in a small production a couple of years later.
In the line of action and reasoning I used, the friction and competition
between Hastings and Buckingham for Richard's protection/favor, etc., leads
to Buckingham convincing Richard that Hastings was morally responsible for
Edward's death (by way of indulging his appetites as a distraction from
condemning George to death).  It is because of this that Hastings turns
against Richard (but not toward the Woodvilles) and Richard condemns him in
the way he does.  Morton, who is no dummy, deduces this and, at Brecon,
corrals Buckingham into supporting Henry Tudor on the strength of being
able show Buckingham that Richard could very well find out Buckingham's
manipulations and that Richard might do to Buckingham what he did to
Hastings.

It worked in the context of the play, and might be worth batting around
(especially since I have to re-write both my Ricardian plays now!!).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think
> that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on
> Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to
> Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon
> where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him
> against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne
> too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given
> over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this
> a
> > few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such
> a
> > hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for
> Buckingham.
> > Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part
> in
> > the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as
> the
> > psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly
> embrace
> > Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have
> leaned
> > on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> > want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the
> message
> > route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> > Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> > Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were
> plotting,
> > but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
> him,
> > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption
> by
> > Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> > "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> > well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal
> bloodline. We
> > know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so
> perhaps
> > he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> > solidarity", I guess.
> > One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences
> with
> > his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> > sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I
> recall,
> > Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E
> of
> > Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided
> whenever
> > possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that*
> was
> > a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also*
> disapproved
> > of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based
> on
> > Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> > Doug
> >
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I doubt that Buckingham would have supported the Tydder's claim to the throne as he did actually have a claim to the throne himself as he was legitimately descended from Edward III. Another scenario could be that Morton played up Buckingham's claim to the throne to encourage him to rebel so that Richard would defeat him and hey presto another stumbling block in the Tydder's road to the throne is eliminated.

It has always seemed very odd to me that Edward dies in April 1483 and within two and a half years all Tudor's obstacles are gone. I read somewhere, and I can't for the life of me remember where, I thought it was Charles Oman's book about Warwick but I checked and it wasn't, that after Tewkesbury MB considered her son to be the Lancastrian heir. Now as we all know he was not, there was no Lancastrian heir. It ocurred to me that it would not be easy to take the throne away from Edward who would stand firmly in her way. Also it wasn't only Edward, who else would she have to get rid of to be sure of getting the throne for her son. Clarence was helpfully disposed of by Edward but Richard and his son would probably have been on her list. It goes without saying that the Woodvilles and the Princes would be on the list and Buckingham who had a claim to the throne. The other person who ocurred to me was Hastings because he would never have stood by and allowed Edward's son to have the throne taken by the Tydder. He was obviously not happy when Richard lawfully took the throne. All these people were either dead or in exile and not powerful enough (in the case of the Woodvilles), in two and a half years. Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" is based on this scenario and he puts MB's plotting at the centre of it all. Just another theory with tiny bits of possible evidence.




--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm very much where you are - Morton was an opportunist who I guess was good at detecting weaknesses in others. He'd been around a long time and seen a lot in both Courts. And somewhere in all this we've got Catesby, who worked for all of them and Clarence as well. Fascinating stuff - quite as good as the machinations of H8's Court.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> Thing is, though, I don't think Buckingham would have needed Morton to
> remind him of such a thing (though Morton may very well have been able to
> play him, but even then....).
>
> For what it's worth, I'll throw in the reasoning I used for my play,
> _Loyalty Lies_, which I drafted in around 2000, and which tossed its
> reasoning before the public in a small production a couple of years later.
> In the line of action and reasoning I used, the friction and competition
> between Hastings and Buckingham for Richard's protection/favor, etc., leads
> to Buckingham convincing Richard that Hastings was morally responsible for
> Edward's death (by way of indulging his appetites as a distraction from
> condemning George to death).  It is because of this that Hastings turns
> against Richard (but not toward the Woodvilles) and Richard condemns him in
> the way he does.  Morton, who is no dummy, deduces this and, at Brecon,
> corrals Buckingham into supporting Henry Tudor on the strength of being
> able show Buckingham that Richard could very well find out Buckingham's
> manipulations and that Richard might do to Buckingham what he did to
> Hastings.
>
> It worked in the context of the play, and might be worth batting around
> (especially since I have to re-write both my Ricardian plays now!!).
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think
> > that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on
> > Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to
> > Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon
> > where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him
> > against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne
> > too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given
> > over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this
> > a
> > > few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such
> > a
> > > hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for
> > Buckingham.
> > > Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part
> > in
> > > the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as
> > the
> > > psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly
> > embrace
> > > Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have
> > leaned
> > > on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> > > want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the
> > message
> > > route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> > > Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> > > Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were
> > plotting,
> > > but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
> > him,
> > > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption
> > by
> > > Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> > > "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> > > well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal
> > bloodline. We
> > > know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so
> > perhaps
> > > he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> > > solidarity", I guess.
> > > One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences
> > with
> > > his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> > > sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I
> > recall,
> > > Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E
> > of
> > > Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided
> > whenever
> > > possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that*
> > was
> > > a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also*
> > disapproved
> > > of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based
> > on
> > > Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort



Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
>
>The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>
>Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>
>It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>>
>> From: Claire M Jordan
>> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>> in her early to mid teens.]
>>
>>
>> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard



"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Actually, *if* Buckingham was a drunk then the more important his rôle in
> the coronation, the more likely Baker's scenario becomes, because if he
> called in sick with a hangover Richard would be left saying "I don't care
> if your leg's fallen off, I can*not* replace you at two hours' notice!"
>
Carol responds:

> But there's no historical basis for Baker's scenario at all!

No indeed - but it's not like somebody inventing something in the Victorian
era. He was close enough in time that he *could* have heard it from
somebody who heard it from their grandfather who was present at the event,
especially as Baker's own grandfather was a senior court official. So we
can't know whether it was true or not, but it's unflowery and sharp enough
that it sounds like it could easily be a report of actual conversation.

I'm also inclined to believe his account (also perhaps only one or two
removes from an eyewitness) of Richard leaping out of bed and running
frantically about his room in the middle of the night, although not his
interpretation of it. I don't believe, no, that Richard was suffering from
terrible nightmares about his supposed crimes, but the actions Baker
describes are just what you would expect of someone with scoliosis whose
back had just gone into spasm. There was probably a lot of good Yorkshire
swearing involved.

I hope you are not stereotyping people.  I come from a state (Alabama) that you would probably include in your statement.
Vickie

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort

 
It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!



From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthurian
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort



Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
>
>The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>
>Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>
>It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>>
>> From: Claire M Jordan
>> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>> in her early to mid teens.]
>>
>>
>> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Looks like another of those Tudor fabrications like the one of our George, 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 0:15
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


 

Here is a link to Buck's image......... not very fetching, is he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Stafford.jpg

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:17 PM, "Claire M Jordan" mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
> > later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
>
> Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
> Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
> love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Oh, and unless Henry was a premie she must have got pregnant when she was twelve. And even in the unlikely event that she was fully developed at that age and really did want Edmund, that would still be tragic, because her austerity and lack of other children in later life would then suggest that she had lost the love of her life when she was thirteen and probably never loved again. Which would maket the Stanley brothers' willingness to betray their king in order to protect their wife/sister-in-law from another beareavement understandable imo, if regrettable.

Carol responds:

I think you're crediting the Stanleys with more compassion and empathy than they possessed. I've never heard either of them credited with any motive other than self-interest. Sir William may originally have felt a shade of loyalty to Edward IV and consequently to Edward V, but that would hardly explain a shift of loyalties from Yorkist to Tudor unless he was convinced that Tudor would marry Elizabeth of York. We know that he wasn't motivated by Richard's supposed "murder" of Edward's sons (as indicated by his later remark about Perkin Warbeck), but he may have been motivated by E5's deposition--or by personal dislike of Richard or hope of advancement by the winner. Gallantry to a scheming sister-in-law who may already have looked older than her forty-two years? I really doubt it. Not even the Tudor sources make any such suggestion.

And, forgive me, but you seem to be romanticizing Margaret Beaufort, too. All of her marriages appear to have been motivated by financial gain (for which she can hardly be blamed given the era, especially when she was widowed at such an early age). She certainly didn't love Lord Stanley, separating from him and living like a nun (except for political involvement) after Henry's coronation. (She even took a vow of chastity twice while still married to him.) I personally think that the only person she ever loved was her son, and that love was the possessive, manipulative kind we see in stage mothers or soccer moms. But in this instance, that possessive love cost many lives and deprived England of its rightful king.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> I think you're crediting the Stanleys with more compassion and empathy
> than they possessed. I've never heard either of them credited with any
> motive other than self-interest.

But they too are subject to history written by their enemies, since nobody
liked them much. These were real people with real feelings.

> Gallantry to a scheming sister-in-law who may already have looked older
> than her forty-two years? I really doubt it.

Why bring sex and her age and appearance and "gallantry" into it, or even
her character? People usually have some sense of fondness for or at least
obligation towards close family. Even if you think of their marriages as
just political alliances, they *were* alliances, and people tend to stick by
their allies.

> And, forgive me, but you seem to be romanticizing Margaret Beaufort, too.
> All of her marriages appear to have been motivated by financial gain (for
> which she can hardly be blamed given the era, especially when she was
> widowed at such an early age). She certainly didn't love Lord Stanley,
> separating from him and living like a nun (except for political
> involvement) after Henry's coronation. (She even took a vow of chastity
> twice while still married to him.)

But that doesn't preclude his having affection for her. If he was a pious
man he might even have revered her for her choice.

> I personally think that the only person she ever loved was her son, and
> that love was the possessive, manipulative kind we see in stage mothers or
> soccer moms.

Yes, but this too is history written by her enemies, in this case,
Ricardians. I don't think we can overcome injustice to one person by
committing injustice to another, or undersatand what was happening unless we
are fair to all concerned.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He had a definite grudge about Edward because he felt he'd deprived him of some of the Bohun lands. Edward didn't like him or trust him either and only used him as Constable of the Tower when Clarence was being disposed of (which I think tells you a lot). [snip]

Carol responds:

Not Constable of the Tower but Constable of England (one of Richard's positions) so Buckingham could pronounce sentence of death on Clarence and Richard wouldn't have to. Which tells you a lot about all three men, actually. But, yes, the Bohun lands were part of the grudge against Edward as was. I suspect, the lack of power and influence despite his blood and wealth. The forced childhood marriage to Katherine Woodville may have been involved, too, though they did at least have a child together.

Later, Richard made Buckingham Constable of England, but I don't know if he ever had the chance to sentence anyone to death. If he did, maybe the power went to his head?

Carol

Hmmm...I don't know...2 vows of chastity while married doesn't sound too affectionate to me but what do I know? I'm not a medieval noble! Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > I think you're crediting the Stanleys with more compassion and empathy
> > than they possessed. I've never heard either of them credited with any
> > motive other than self-interest.
>
> But they too are subject to history written by their enemies, since nobody
> liked them much. These were real people with real feelings.
>
> > Gallantry to a scheming sister-in-law who may already have looked older
> > than her forty-two years? I really doubt it.
>
> Why bring sex and her age and appearance and "gallantry" into it, or even
> her character? People usually have some sense of fondness for or at least
> obligation towards close family. Even if you think of their marriages as
> just political alliances, they *were* alliances, and people tend to stick by
> their allies.
>
> > And, forgive me, but you seem to be romanticizing Margaret Beaufort, too.
> > All of her marriages appear to have been motivated by financial gain (for
> > which she can hardly be blamed given the era, especially when she was
> > widowed at such an early age). She certainly didn't love Lord Stanley,
> > separating from him and living like a nun (except for political
> > involvement) after Henry's coronation. (She even took a vow of chastity
> > twice while still married to him.)
>
> But that doesn't preclude his having affection for her. If he was a pious
> man he might even have revered her for her choice.
>
> > I personally think that the only person she ever loved was her son, and
> > that love was the possessive, manipulative kind we see in stage mothers or
> > soccer moms.
>
> Yes, but this too is history written by her enemies, in this case,
> Ricardians. I don't think we can overcome injustice to one person by
> committing injustice to another, or undersatand what was happening unless we
> are fair to all concerned.
>

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Hmmm...I don't know...2 vows of chastity while married doesn't sound too
> affectionate to me but what do I know? I'm not a medieval noble! Maire.

Well, taking two vows could mean she had um fallen off the wagon in
between....

Ha! But with whom? Sadly, history doesn't relate...

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > Hmmm...I don't know...2 vows of chastity while married doesn't sound too
> > affectionate to me but what do I know? I'm not a medieval noble! Maire.
>
> Well, taking two vows could mean she had um fallen off the wagon in
> between....
>

In general, I agree with you about trying to be fair to everyone & take
people at their best. On the other hand, we do know there are people "out
there," who have no qualms about hurting us. It's in the interest of our
own self-preservation to be able to evaluate the evidence provided by the
way others conduct themselves.

Whether it is possible to take everyone at their best in the story of
Richard & his times, I remain to be convinced.

A J

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:46 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> <snip>
>


> Yes, but this too is history written by her enemies, in this case,
> Ricardians. I don't think we can overcome injustice to one person by
> committing injustice to another, or undersatand what was happening unless
> we
> are fair to all concerned.
>
>
>

Maybe off the wagon and into the hay rack??? Yes, sadly, we do not know the details!!!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard



Ha! But with whom? Sadly, history doesn't relate...

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> > Hmmm...I don't know...2 vows of chastity while married doesn't sound too
> > affectionate to me but what do I know? I'm not a medieval noble! Maire.
>
> Well, taking two vows could mean she had um fallen off the wagon in
> between....
>

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Whether it is possible to take everyone at their best in the story of
> Richard & his times, I remain to be convinced.

No, but we can't assume we should necessarily take them at their worst,
either. And the fact that the Stanleys didn't, apparently, openly change
sides until it looked as if Henry Tudor was going to be killed suggests that
they felt some kind of obligation to protect a family member. If their
motive had been self-serving then when it looked as if Henry was about to be
wiped out you would expect them to have come in on *Richard's* side.

McJohn wrote:
>
> I read, a gabillion years ago, that the Western notion of childhood as a special stage of human development, deserving of protection and devoted to play and school, came about somewhere between the Federalist period and the Victorian age. In an agricultural society (which ours was, worldwide, until recently), children were extra hands for sowin' and reapin', not magical creatures who delighted their parents by wondering why the sky is blue. Child mortality was significant enough that parents had to steel themselves against loving their children. In a society marked by the need for laboring hands and the certainty of losing a number of young children to disease, sending your matrimonial assets off to seal an alliance by reproducing in their turn must have been a huge temptation, no matter how shockingly young they were. The very thought of Anne Mowbray and Richard of York getting married while their combined ages were nearly in single digits just skeeves me out completely.

Carol responds:

Or even worse, Anne of York's marriage at age seven or eight to Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, who was about seventeen. Not much wonder that marriage didn't work out. They did have one daughter, born in 1455, when Anne was about sixteen, which suggests but does not prove that Exeter waited until she was about fifteen (and he was about twenty-five) to consummate the marriage.

In addition to marrying off (or betrothing) their children at very young ages, many upper-class parents of Richard's time sent their children off to live in other people's houses. And some, usually boys whose fathers had died as traitors, were wards of the crown (Edward of Warwick, Francis Lovell) to be given almost as property to wealthy supporters of the king.

Carol

Carol, yeah, it was me.
And he does look terrible! I wonder why the artist represented Buck in such a fashion. Unless it was given out that he looked like that ?!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Yes, we have thought when we discussed this before, that it could be the ressemblance to Clarence. Why I brought it up again is that the new analysis of Richard re-inforces that he probably could have become easy prey to a more forceful, supposedly charismatic person - one whom Edward didn't trust. And Edward, despite the Woodvilles, was quite a shrewd politician when it came to judging people. If he hadn't died so early our friend Morton would probably easily have been bought off with a higher archbishopric, or a cardinal's hat. It was not below Edward to do things like that - some would say the easy, lazy way out.
> Yes that portrait is pretty awful; like the similar supposed one of Clarence.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:36
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> One more thought on this--and I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to figure out Richard's attraction to Buckingham--Richard had friends his own age but none who were his social equal or near equal. And many of the peers of the realm, IIRC, were either much younger or much older than Richard, were not of the blood royal, or were tainted by Lancastrian associations. (Since Buckingham was a child when his Lancastrian father died, Richard would have considered him Yorkist.) So in that sense, though Buckingham was slightly younger rather than slightly older than George, he may well have seemed like a brother substitute regardless of whether there was any likeness in looks or personality between him and George.
>
> Someone, I think it was Ishita, asked if there was any portrait of Buckingham. No contemporary likeness exists, unfortunately. The ghastly Wikipedia illustration, which makes him look like a fat, unshaven thug, is eighteenth century.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort


> In addition to marrying off (or betrothing) their children at very young
> ages, many upper-class parents of Richard's time sent their children off
> to live in other people's houses.

Well, it was the norm for British families in the raj to send their children
back to the UK to be educated when they were about seven (also to remove
them from the threat of tropical diseases) and they often didn't see them
again until they were sixteen, unless the parents came back to the UK for a
few months on leave. My father was sent from Burma to his aunt in
Kilmarnock when he was 3½, and thence to a boarding school in Ramsgate
(which is as far from Kilmarnock as it's possible to get without falling off
into the sea) when he was 6½.

Carol earlier:
> > Richard asked him to limit his escort to match his own, which was, IIRC, three hundred men in mourning, not armor.

Claire responded:
> 300 "gentlemen", wasn't it? I mean, it would be 300 nobs plus their
> servants and baggage-train, so all told probably about 700 people.
>
Carol again:

Yes. Sorry about that. I was thinking of what they wore (mourning, not armor) rather than rank or social class. Certainly, they would have had servants with them, but maybe not more servants than gentlemen. But Richard was clearly trying *not* to look like the leader of an invading army, and he didn't want Buckingham to create that impression, either. Essentially, it was "I come in peace to do my duty." He made sure that the arrests were peaceful and bloodless, but he also made clear that he would not be thwarted by Woodvilles schemes.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Yes. Sorry about that. I was thinking of what they wore (mourning, not
> armor) rather than rank or social class. Certainly, they would have had
> servants with them, but maybe not more servants than gentlemen.

Surely they'd have at least one body servant/valet each, plus extra staff to
look after the horses...?

Ishita: have you seen any of the 17th/18th century engravings of poor Richard? His nose droops down to his chest, lol! I'm sure somebody will tell us why these portraits are so awful. Hogarth's influence, perhaps? Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, yeah, it was me.
> And he does look terrible! I wonder why the artist represented Buck in such a fashion. Unless it was given out that he looked like that ?!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we have thought when we discussed this before, that it could be the ressemblance to Clarence. Why I brought it up again is that the new analysis of Richard re-inforces that he probably could have become easy prey to a more forceful, supposedly charismatic person - one whom Edward didn't trust. And Edward, despite the Woodvilles, was quite a shrewd politician when it came to judging people. If he hadn't died so early our friend Morton would probably easily have been bought off with a higher archbishopric, or a cardinal's hat. It was not below Edward to do things like that - some would say the easy, lazy way out.
> > Yes that portrait is pretty awful; like the similar supposed one of Clarence.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:36
> > Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > One more thought on this--and I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to figure out Richard's attraction to Buckingham--Richard had friends his own age but none who were his social equal or near equal. And many of the peers of the realm, IIRC, were either much younger or much older than Richard, were not of the blood royal, or were tainted by Lancastrian associations. (Since Buckingham was a child when his Lancastrian father died, Richard would have considered him Yorkist.) So in that sense, though Buckingham was slightly younger rather than slightly older than George, he may well have seemed like a brother substitute regardless of whether there was any likeness in looks or personality between him and George.
> >
> > Someone, I think it was Ishita, asked if there was any portrait of Buckingham. No contemporary likeness exists, unfortunately. The ghastly Wikipedia illustration, which makes him look like a fat, unshaven thug, is eighteenth century.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> No indeed - but it's not like somebody inventing something in the
> Victorian
era. He was close enough in time that he *could* have heard it from
somebody who heard it from their grandfather who was present at the event,

Thinking some more about this, I think we can trust that Baker did *have* a
source (whether or not that source was a reliable one) and he didn't just
make things up, unless he was a massive hypocrite, because he was very snide
about the fact that he could see that More had made at least some of his
dialogue up.

I believe that consummating a marriage with a girl under the age of puberty
(accepted roughly as 14 - 15 at that time) was very much frowned upon in
'polite circles' but there was no law against this.

I also believe that the situation with Edmund Tudor revolved strictly around
the fact that Margaret Beaufort was an exceptional heiress - and there was
the risk that an unconsummated union could be annulled. Edmund was after the
money - not the girl.

Indeed, I understand that other rare unions of older men to very young girls
when the marriage was consummated immediately, almost always strictly
involved the business of ensuring the inheritance. Money came first. Never
mind the wretched girl's experience - just make sure the heiress is secure
and can't claim an annulment.

It may have been stated at the time that she was equally willing. This would
have been a get-out-clause for Tudor to escape peer disapproval. Of course,
he might also have talked her into it.

I also understand that prostitution involving children (male and female) did
exist in the back streets - especially in Southwark - but not in legally
licensed brothels. Frowned upon again - but not normally punishable.

Children had virtually no protection under the law - but there were general
standards - though could be easily flouted.

By the way, surely Richard did not command an army at the age of twelve? I
understand he was given license to muster in the king's name at that age -
still a very responsible position.

The age of 14 was (I believe) the accepted age for being called to battle
for males.

Barbara

From: barbara
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort


> I believe that consummating a marriage with a girl under the age of
> puberty (accepted roughly as 14 - 15 at that time) was very much frowned
> upon in 'polite circles' but there was no law against this.

To be fair, if Edmund Tudor got MB pregnant when she was twelve she clearly
*wasn't* under the age of puberty - just a very early starter.

> Never mind the wretched girl's experience - just make sure the heiress is
> secure and can't claim an annulment.

Yes, I see.

> By the way, surely Richard did not command an army at the age of twelve?

Not in battle, no, but I understood that he moved them about the country and
arranged their billets, so it wasn't just a ceremonial position.

Arthur wrote:
>[snip]
> [As I understand it, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward, Not Richard and was over the Woodville marriage.] [snip]

Carol responds:

Initially, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward alone, but he may have seen himself as Richard's mentor (and, ideally, his future father-in-law) and resented Richard for choosing Edward over him while George of Clarence remained "faithful" (to Warwick). There's no indication either way.

But there was more to Warwick's frustration than resentment of the Woodville marriage (and his own embarrassment at having been negotiating a French marriage for Edward when Edward was secretly married to someone else. Edward had refused to grant permission for his brothers to marry Warwick's daughters (George had married Isabel, anyway), he had deprived Warwick's youngest brother, George, of some ecclesiastical office (can't recall which one), and he eventually took away the earldom of Northumberland from Warwick's other brother, John, and gave it back to Henry. He also (wisely) ignored Warwick's advice to befriend France rather than Burgundy. It appears that Warwick thought he had made a king (though the term "Kingmaker" wasn't used at a time) and resented it when that king started making his own decisions, among them that Woodville marriage, which Warwick was not alone in resenting.

Carol

Hahaha!!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:35 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> > Hmmm...I don't know...2 vows of chastity while married doesn't sound too
> > affectionate to me but what do I know? I'm not a medieval noble! Maire.
>
> Well, taking two vows could mean she had um fallen off the wagon in
> between....
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> But there was more to Warwick's frustration than resentment of the
> Woodville marriage (and his own embarrassment at having been negotiating a
> French marriage for Edward when Edward was secretly married to someone
> else.

To *two* someone elses! Do you think Warwick ever found out that the
Woodville marriage was (probably) bigamous?

Maire, yeah, those are atrocious://

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Ishita: have you seen any of the 17th/18th century engravings of poor Richard? His nose droops down to his chest, lol! I'm sure somebody will tell us why these portraits are so awful. Hogarth's influence, perhaps? Maire.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Carol, yeah, it was me.
> > And he does look terrible! I wonder why the artist represented Buck in such a fashion. Unless it was given out that he looked like that ?!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, we have thought when we discussed this before, that it could be the ressemblance to Clarence. Why I brought it up again is that the new analysis of Richard re-inforces that he probably could have become easy prey to a more forceful, supposedly charismatic person - one whom Edward didn't trust. And Edward, despite the Woodvilles, was quite a shrewd politician when it came to judging people. If he hadn't died so early our friend Morton would probably easily have been bought off with a higher archbishopric, or a cardinal's hat. It was not below Edward to do things like that - some would say the easy, lazy way out.
> > > Yes that portrait is pretty awful; like the similar supposed one of Clarence.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:36
> > > Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about that, but I for one know it has been mooted. Thanks for understanding. For what I think the latest pschological analysis shows is that Richard was indeed insecure and had no record for trusting those he'd not known for a very long time. This to me points to the fact that Buckingham must have had an overwhelming  personality to 'take him in' so completely after such a distant acquaintance. It was Weds I think who came up with the sociopath thing (she may have said psychopath, but that's a bit strong), and now it seems to fit even more. That's the point I was making.  H.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > One more thought on this--and I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to figure out Richard's attraction to Buckingham--Richard had friends his own age but none who were his social equal or near equal. And many of the peers of the realm, IIRC, were either much younger or much older than Richard, were not of the blood royal, or were tainted by Lancastrian associations. (Since Buckingham was a child when his Lancastrian father died, Richard would have considered him Yorkist.) So in that sense, though Buckingham was slightly younger rather than slightly older than George, he may well have seemed like a brother substitute regardless of whether there was any likeness in looks or personality between him and George.
> > >
> > > Someone, I think it was Ishita, asked if there was any portrait of Buckingham. No contemporary likeness exists, unfortunately. The ghastly Wikipedia illustration, which makes him look like a fat, unshaven thug, is eighteenth century.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Gracious, that has to be so hard on everyone. But, it was the norm, so probably the children adjusted. I cannot imagine being separated from my parents so very young.

On Mar 6, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort

> In addition to marrying off (or betrothing) their children at very young
> ages, many upper-class parents of Richard's time sent their children off
> to live in other people's houses.

Well, it was the norm for British families in the raj to send their children
back to the UK to be educated when they were about seven (also to remove
them from the threat of tropical diseases) and they often didn't see them
again until they were sixteen, unless the parents came back to the UK for a
few months on leave. My father was sent from Burma to his aunt in
Kilmarnock when he was 3ý, and thence to a boarding school in Ramsgate
(which is as far from Kilmarnock as it's possible to get without falling off
into the sea) when he was 6ý.

To do a "what if" : Only if Ed did not take way Northumberland from John Neville, Richard might have survived Bosworth.... But is neither here nor there....

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:59 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Arthur wrote:
> >[snip]
> > [As I understand it, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward, Not Richard and was over the Woodville marriage.] [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Initially, Warwick's quarrel was with Edward alone, but he may have seen himself as Richard's mentor (and, ideally, his future father-in-law) and resented Richard for choosing Edward over him while George of Clarence remained "faithful" (to Warwick). There's no indication either way.
>
> But there was more to Warwick's frustration than resentment of the Woodville marriage (and his own embarrassment at having been negotiating a French marriage for Edward when Edward was secretly married to someone else. Edward had refused to grant permission for his brothers to marry Warwick's daughters (George had married Isabel, anyway), he had deprived Warwick's youngest brother, George, of some ecclesiastical office (can't recall which one), and he eventually took away the earldom of Northumberland from Warwick's other brother, John, and gave it back to Henry. He also (wisely) ignored Warwick's advice to befriend France rather than Burgundy. It appears that Warwick thought he had made a king (though the term "Kingmaker" wasn't used at a time) and resented it when that king started making his own decisions, among them that Woodville marriage, which Warwick was not alone in resenting.
>
> Carol
>
>

That's a good question. The original doesn't specify, but it was written in 1959 and they might have been a bit twitchy about that:

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp

(It also refers to the standard-issue child as "he", but at least they were thinking about children enough to write the declaration in the first place.)

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> > 
> >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> >
> >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> >
> >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> >
> >--- In , liz williams wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Claire M Jordan
> >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> >> in her early to mid teens.]
> >>
> >>  
> >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger).  I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older.  I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited.  I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Oh, you've been to Alabama?

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
>
> Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>>
> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> >
> >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> >
> >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> >
> >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> >
> >--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Claire M Jordan
> >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> >> in her early to mid teens.]
> >>
> >>
> >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm from Alabama. You really should be careful when you say things like that. I guess you never thought someone from Alabama could possibly be interested in Richard III.
BTW Did you know the current head of Apple-Tim Cook-is from Alabama?
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Arthur.
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... >
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> > >
> > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> > >
> > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> > >
> > >--- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Claire M Jordan
> > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> > >> in her early to mid teens.]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort


> Oh, you've been to Alabama?

Don't be mean - one of the absolutely most intelligent, thoughtful and
articulate people I know is a Southern gal!

And Arkansas!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



Oh, you've been to Alabama?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
>
> Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... >
> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> >
> >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> >
> >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> >
> >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> >
> >--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Claire M Jordan
> >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> >> in her early to mid teens.]
> >>
> >>
> >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Really? You are being very offensive
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> And Arkansas!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>> It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
>>
>>
>>
>> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Arthurian
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>>
>>
>>
>> Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Arthur.
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... >
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>>> Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>>>
>>> Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>>>
>>> It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Claire M Jordan
>>>> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>>>> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>>>> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>>>> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>>>> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>>>> in her early to mid teens.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Oh Vickie, did not mean to roller skate over any particular state, and now we have. I think every city, state, and country have a sector of cultured, erudite and educated people, along with a fair number of them who are not the brightest lights in the string. That is what I should have said. Mea culpa, and my skates are in storage!

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Vickie" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:



I'm from Alabama. You really should be careful when you say things like that. I guess you never thought someone from Alabama could possibly be interested in Richard III.
BTW Did you know the current head of Apple-Tim Cook-is from Alabama?
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:

> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Arthur.
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... >
> > >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> > >
> > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> > >
> > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> > >
> > >--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Claire M Jordan
> > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> > >> in her early to mid teens.]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Carol earlier:
> > Okay, I checked last night. Someone did cross out "Ricardus" but not "regem" in the prayer, which suggests that it was not Margaret Beaufort.
>
> "In the honour of God and St Edmund, pray for Margaret Richmond" is written on an end fly-leaf.

Carol responds:

But not in the prayer itself.

Carol earlier:
> > The prayer was copied for him into his own Book of Hours with his own name included twice in near-perfect Latin in a very neat scribal hand.

Claire:
> P T-C says "in a rough hand imitating the earlier script of the book", but does believe it was written in for Richard himself rather than the previous owner (probably Ann), so you're probably right that it was his personally and had drifted from its original use (accto P C-T) as a prayer for women in childbirth. I wish I had a photo' of the prayer (as opposed to the illuminations, which are in the catalogue) to see whether Richard's name is in the same hand as the body of the prayer or not.
>
> The full text of the prayer in Latin and in English is in the back of the catalogue.
>
Carol responds:

The prayer itself (the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs book contains a photograph of the first page) is beautifully copied, and, yes, "Ricardus regem" is in the same hand ("The presence of the king's name *in the hand of the scribe* suggests a wish to give the prayer a personal application," p. 73), but that page is not photographed. The only part "in a rough hand" is the first part of the prayer which someone has supplied because the page is missing (clearly visible in the photograph). If you're interested, I strongly suggest that you read the detailed and scholarly "Hours of Richard III" by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, both scholars of the first order. And the book itself is beautiful though, unfortunately, most of the illustrations are in black and white. (My copy of the book says that it cost 12.99 pounds though I would have paid for it in U.S. dollars. It probably costs about twice that now but is worth every penny.)

As for the prayer being for women in childbirth, clearly not or neither Richard nor his contemporary rulers, Ferdinand and Maximillian, would have included it in their books of hours if it were written for such a specific and inappropriate occasion. If the full text is in the catalogue, there's no point in quoting it in full here since you can read it for yourself. But just the beginning is sufficient to indicate that it has a much more general application and would appeal particularly to a man in a position of power threatened by enemies: "O most sweet Lord Jesus . . . deign to release me from the affliction, temptation, grief, sickness, need, and danger in which I stand, and give me counsel. . . . [D]eign to make and keep concord between me and my enemies, to show me and pour over me your grace and glory, and deign to assuage, turn aside, destroy, and bring to nothing the hatred they bear towards me."

It's easy to see, just from this small snippet, why this particular prayer would appeal to Richard and why he would want it copied into his personal book of hours--with his own name as an integral part of the prayer. As I said earlier, the authors suggest that Richard's confessor copied it for him, and I think that's very likely the case. The fact that it says "King Richard" and not "Richard Gloucestre" shows that it was added to the book after his coronation, and the repetition of "dolor" (grief) in his copy but no other suggests that it was written at least after his son's death and possibly after his wife's as well.

If the prayer did start as a prayer for women in childbirth (and I get no such impression from Sutton and Visser-Fuchs), it drifted a long way from that beginning as it evolved over the centuries. The authors state that parts of the prayer are very old (a version of the part about Daniel in the lion's den and similar Old Testament miracles was used by Charlemagne), but the version used by Richard (not counting the special features unique to his version) dates only to the mid-fourteenth century. One copy credits the prayer to Saint Augustine (who, we can safely assume, never endured childbirth), but the authors suspect that this attribution is mistaken.

The purpose of the prayer appears to be to provide comfort not only through the act of reciting it but through belief in its effectiveness. Prayer was a powerful psychological tool for medieval Catholics. I suspect that it kept Richard, his mother, and many other pious people sane in a world where death was much more familiar than it is to us. (I speak as someone who knows the pain of bereavement.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> As for the prayer being for women in childbirth, clearly not or neither
> Richard nor his contemporary rulers, Ferdinand and Maximillian, would have
> included it in their books of hours if it were written for such a specific
> and inappropriate occasion.

That's it's original purpose accto P T-C - that's why it's so long and
hypnotic. It's designed to calm somebody who is being put through the
wringer.

> The fact that it says "King Richard" and not "Richard Gloucestre" shows
> that it was added to the book after his coronation, and the repetition of
> "dolor" (grief) in his copy but no other suggests that it was written at
> least after his son's death and possibly after his wife's as well.

Yes. Especially as it's in a book which she probably gave to him, since it
came from the Warwick family.

> One copy credits the prayer to Saint Augustine (who, we can safely assume,
> never endured childbirth), but the authors suspect that this attribution
> is mistaken.

This one starts "Of the blessed Julian", which suggests that it's a version
originating with the female English mystic Juliana of Norwich.

> (I speak as someone who knows the pain of bereavement.)

Me, too, but I never found prayer to be of any help.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with both of you. We can only ever guess, but my guess is that Buckingham still harboured a grudge against Edward, somehow down the line realised that Richard wasn't going to be quite as malleable as he perhaps once thought (perhaps he thought E's deputy was a northern innocent) and was got at by Morton, who fanned the flames of his greed. We shall probably never know but I find it one of the most fascinating parts of the whole story, including the fact that Buckingham might have killed the princes to get in with Richard and it badly misfired.  I still hover somewhere between that and that they did get abroad. I think the latter was almost certainly Richard's intention. H

Carol responds:

Or, if he killed them, he might have done it to clear the way for his own claim, knowing that the blame would fall on Richard if word of their deaths, or even suspicion of their deaths, got out. And he could, theoretically, have spread that rumor that they had been violently killed, "none knew how."

But I'm more and more inclined to the view that they escaped abroad as part of a plan involving Richard, Margaret, Tyrrell, and possibly Brampton (who certainly was involved after the fact if Perkin Warbeck was the younger nephew.

Carol

Man, no wonder they got cranky and started wars. It's a wonder any of them got to adulthood without being certifiably insane.

(I believe I may owe you thanks for correcting my Mafiosi-style description of Richard asking Buckingham to meet him with some serious heat right after Edward IV's death. Of course, Richard did request that Buckingham and his associates not show up armed to the gills, but in mourning.)

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> McJohn wrote:
> >
> > I read, a gabillion years ago, that the Western notion of childhood as a special stage of human development, deserving of protection and devoted to play and school, came about somewhere between the Federalist period and the Victorian age. In an agricultural society (which ours was, worldwide, until recently), children were extra hands for sowin' and reapin', not magical creatures who delighted their parents by wondering why the sky is blue. Child mortality was significant enough that parents had to steel themselves against loving their children. In a society marked by the need for laboring hands and the certainty of losing a number of young children to disease, sending your matrimonial assets off to seal an alliance by reproducing in their turn must have been a huge temptation, no matter how shockingly young they were. The very thought of Anne Mowbray and Richard of York getting married while their combined ages were nearly in single digits just skeeves me out completely.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Or even worse, Anne of York's marriage at age seven or eight to Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, who was about seventeen. Not much wonder that marriage didn't work out. They did have one daughter, born in 1455, when Anne was about sixteen, which suggests but does not prove that Exeter waited until she was about fifteen (and he was about twenty-five) to consummate the marriage.
>
> In addition to marrying off (or betrothing) their children at very young ages, many upper-class parents of Richard's time sent their children off to live in other people's houses. And some, usually boys whose fathers had died as traitors, were wards of the crown (Edward of Warwick, Francis Lovell) to be given almost as property to wealthy supporters of the king.
>
> Carol
>

[Sigh.] Of all the states to choose to pick on... I apologize formally to Alabamians. I should have said South Carolina.

(For those who are unfamiliar with American regional pride, perhaps this will be an illustration. The unofficial motto of Texas, which is described as a "low-tax, low-service state", is "Thank God for Mississippi.")

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Arthur.
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>>
> > >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> > >
> > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> > >
> > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> > >
> > >--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Claire M Jordan
> > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> > >> in her early to mid teens.]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm sorry, Vickie, that was a cheap joke and I made it anyway. The American South has the rep for being inhabited by a bunch of intolerant boobs--and Texas is right in there with the boobiest of them--but the world headquarters of the white supremacist movement is now in Idaho, of all unlikely places.

--- In , Vickie <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Really? You are being very offensive
> Vickie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > And Arkansas!
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, you've been to Alabama?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >>
> >> It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Arthur.
> >>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@ >
> >>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> >>> Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> >>>
> >>> Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> >>>
> >>> It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> >>>
> >>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Claire M Jordan
> >>>> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> >>>> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> >>>> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> >>>> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> >>>> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> >>>> in her early to mid teens.]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

A handsome apology!

You guys can tune out for a sec, as this is way OT, but I thought I would tell you about my Houston. Yes, it's in Texas, and yes, it's known for the oil business (pronounced, until fairly recently, as "th'awl bidniss"), the rodeo, and urban sprawl, but this place can be pure magic.

One day, I was at the French Gourmet Bakery in a prosperous part of town (you stick a bunch of petroleum wealth in a swamp for a century and see if you don't end up with an air-conditioned arts complex downtown). The woman behind the counter was authentically French, and while she was bagging up a whole bunch o' baguettes, she was talking, in French, to a client standing at the counter with her back to me. The client, a sleek dark-haired woman, had on the only honest to God Chanel suit I had ever seen in my life. (People have asked me how I knew that's what it was, and all I can say is, when you see one, you too will have no doubt whatsoever that that's what you are looking at.)

She and the proprietor were chatting away in rapid-fire French, so fast and fluid I could only get every fifth word or so (to the disappointment of the missus, who expects me either to be able to gist or make up something entertaining.)

So, eventually, the proprietor and Mme.-de-Chanel-suit finished their enjoyable conversation, and the customer turned to leave.

She was Vietnamese.

And THAT is what Houston is like.

(I hope this kind of demonstrates that jokes about gap-toothed yokels have so little basis in reality, if they ever did, that it's impossible to regard Cletus in "The Simpsons" as an ethnographically accurate portrait of the rural American mobile-home dweller.)

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Vickie, did not mean to roller skate over any particular state, and now we have. I think every city, state, and country have a sector of cultured, erudite and educated people, along with a fair number of them who are not the brightest lights in the string. That is what I should have said. Mea culpa, and my skates are in storage!

See, I just can't see Richard not trying Buckingham for murder publicly if he had done away with Richard's nephews. I don't think Buckingham killed those kids and I don't think Richard did either. I think he sent 'em off to live with Auntie Meggins in Burgundy.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I agree with both of you. We can only ever guess, but my guess is that Buckingham still harboured a grudge against Edward, somehow down the line realised that Richard wasn't going to be quite as malleable as he perhaps once thought (perhaps he thought E's deputy was a northern innocent) and was got at by Morton, who fanned the flames of his greed. We shall probably never know but I find it one of the most fascinating parts of the whole story, including the fact that Buckingham might have killed the princes to get in with Richard and it badly misfired.  I still hover somewhere between that and that they did get abroad. I think the latter was almost certainly Richard's intention. H
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Or, if he killed them, he might have done it to clear the way for his own claim, knowing that the blame would fall on Richard if word of their deaths, or even suspicion of their deaths, got out. And he could, theoretically, have spread that rumor that they had been violently killed, "none knew how."
>
> But I'm more and more inclined to the view that they escaped abroad as part of a plan involving Richard, Margaret, Tyrrell, and possibly Brampton (who certainly was involved after the fact if Perkin Warbeck was the younger nephew.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita: have you seen any of the 17th/18th century engravings of poor Richard? His nose droops down to his chest, lol! I'm sure somebody will tell us why these portraits are so awful. Hogarth's influence, perhaps? Maire.

Carol responds:

I think it's the growing influence of the legend, which had become "fact" by that time. It was More who first indirectly distorted Richard's age by making Edward 53 instead of not quite forty-one at death and ignoring the ten and a half years between them. And Shakespeare has him fighting in battles as a grown man when he was really a child. You can see him growing older and older in the portraits. By the eighteenth century, he looks about seventy. Evidently his supporters (even Buckingham, who later deserted him, got uglified along with him). And the "portrait" of George, though he wasn't around during Richard's reign, may also have suffered from the misconception that all three brothers were older than they really were.

At least a middle-aged or elderly Richard is one misconception that seems to be permanently cleared up by the discovery of his skeleton (and the facial reconstruction). That and the River Soar myth.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> To *two* someone elses! Do you think Warwick ever found out that the Woodville marriage was (probably) bigamous?

Carol responds:

I don't think so. He couldn't have known about the Eleanor Butler marriage or he wouldn't have negotiated with Louis Xi for a marriage between Edward and Bona of Savoy. And since Warwick tended to sling mud at his enemies (first Margaret of Anjou and then Edward) and because he hated the Woodvilles, I think he would have spoken up, and loudly, if he knew.

Carol

Alabama is a wonderful state. Home to one of my favorite authors and personalities: Zelda Fitzgerald. Not to mention the brilliant Helen Keller, Harper Lee & Truman Capote! Maire.

--- In , Vickie <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> I'm from Alabama. You really should be careful when you say things like that. I guess you never thought someone from Alabama could possibly be interested in Richard III.
> BTW Did you know the current head of Apple-Tim Cook-is from Alabama?
> Vickie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh, you've been to Alabama?
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > >
> > > Arthur.
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@ >
> > > >To:
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> > > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> > > >
> > > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> > > >
> > > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> > > >
> > > >--- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Claire M Jordan
> > > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> > > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> > > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> > > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> > > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> > > >> in her early to mid teens.]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Maybe that's why I am so interested in Richard-we've both gotten bad press!
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:28 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Alabama is a wonderful state. Home to one of my favorite authors and personalities: Zelda Fitzgerald. Not to mention the brilliant Helen Keller, Harper Lee & Truman Capote! Maire.
>
> --- In , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > I'm from Alabama. You really should be careful when you say things like that. I guess you never thought someone from Alabama could possibly be interested in Richard III.
> > BTW Did you know the current head of Apple-Tim Cook-is from Alabama?
> > Vickie
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, you've been to Alabama?
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Arthur.
> > > >
> > > > >________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@ >
> > > > >To:
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
> > > > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
> > > > >
> > > > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
> > > > >
> > > > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: Claire M Jordan
> > > > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
> > > > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
> > > > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
> > > > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
> > > > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
> > > > >> in her early to mid teens.]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

We should be glad for these small blessings at least:/

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 11:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Ishita: have you seen any of the 17th/18th century engravings of poor Richard? His nose droops down to his chest, lol! I'm sure somebody will tell us why these portraits are so awful. Hogarth's influence, perhaps? Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think it's the growing influence of the legend, which had become "fact" by that time. It was More who first indirectly distorted Richard's age by making Edward 53 instead of not quite forty-one at death and ignoring the ten and a half years between them. And Shakespeare has him fighting in battles as a grown man when he was really a child. You can see him growing older and older in the portraits. By the eighteenth century, he looks about seventy. Evidently his supporters (even Buckingham, who later deserted him, got uglified along with him). And the "portrait" of George, though he wasn't around during Richard's reign, may also have suffered from the misconception that all three brothers were older than they really were.
>
> At least a middle-aged or elderly Richard is one misconception that seems to be permanently cleared up by the discovery of his skeleton (and the facial reconstruction). That and the River Soar myth.
>
> Carol
>
>

Lol! But Buck, at least on the face of it was fighting for Tudor.
I do feel bad about the Clarence portrait!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:41 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Looks like another of those Tudor fabrications like the one of our George,
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 0:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
>
>
> Here is a link to Buck's image......... not very fetching, is he?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Stafford.jpg
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:17 PM, "Claire M Jordan" mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> > > What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who
> > > later betrayed him) basically out of the blue.
> >
> > Are there any pictures of Buckingham, or even his immediate descendants?
> > Maybe he looked like Edward - or Edmund. When you've just lost somebody you
> > love you can be terribly vulnerable to that sort of thing.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, are you from the past?

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Having SEEN the skeletal remains, I contend he was in pain, HE WAS in Pain. 
> [I cannot confirm the dagger tweaking, I surrender that one]
>
> Death of Father & Relatives: 
> My own father was killed in the Battle of the Atlantic in late 1942, I was embryonic at the time, 
> the loss is still felt. [I am seventy in May] They are to issue Arctic Convoy Medals, it was just announced.
> If he had been 'Decapitated' my young brother also, the bodies humiliated?
>
> Richard's Father was known to him, Warwick was a kind of 'Mountbatten' [Stepfather?] 
> Loss of Clarence, His Brother Edmund @ Wakefield, 
> Mocking & Dishonouring bodies by Margaret of Anjou & Co. 
> [Although Warwick fell out with Edward, Richard may well have been fond of his former mentor, Clarence did Vacillate.]
>
> Bereavement: 
> His Son & Wife, Clarence, Edward, Maybe blamed Woodvilles or Hastings [Or Both] Re: Edward?
> [You seem to pass over his feelings for Anne, Tragic Anne & his Son.] 
> I would have Grieved & been 'Classed as 'Bereaved,' some losses are slight, some individualstake losses hard !
>
> Loneliness:
> Without Warwick, his Wife, Remember his brother Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick for the most bloody part. Richard, Alas, had only [at a 'Senior level'] John Howard. 
> Most of the  others around him were Junior or inexperienced [Or Ultimately Traitors] and suspected traitors at that.
>
>   I have tried to discover Richard's inner feelings, applying what is 'known' to the human being in the human situation. Sometimes religion & superstitions aside, these guys were similar, more similar, to us than is apparent at first. 
>
>  Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 23:19
> >Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
> >
> >
> > 
> >Arthur wrote:
> >>    Richard certainly was probably in pain as a result of his Scoliosis, had a 'Nervous Habit' of 'Tweaking' his dagger,
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >No, he didn't. That's Vergil's invention. No contemporary description says anything of the sort. Vergil never saw him and began his work when Richard had been dead almost thirty years. He's merely embroidering on Rous. (Luckily, he omits "two years in his mother's womb!"
> >
> >Arthur:
> >had witnessed or was aware of the 'Violent Demise' of his Father, Warwick & Older Brothers',
> >
> >Carol again:
> >
> >Richard's father and older brother Edmund were killed at or after the Battle of Wakefield. *Richard was a child of eight and was nowhere near the battle.* His other brother, George of Clarence, was privately executed. No source indicates that Richard was present, and the death sentence was passed on him by the duke of Buckingham, whom Edward made constable in Richard's place for the occasion.
> >
> >Arthur:
> >was a Bereaved Man,
> >
> >Carol:
> >
> >Not at the time he's accused of murdering his nephews, unless you're counting his loss of his brother Edward as a bereavement
> >
> >Arthur:
> >was probably under subtle threat from the Woodvilles [We are still NOT fully aware of their role in Clarence's execution] and Blessed Margaret & Others were all very antipathetic to him.
> >
> >Carol:
> >No argument there. If the plots against his life while he was Protector were real (and I see no reason to doubt that they were), the threat was more than subtle.
> >
> >Arthur:
> >Without Warwick, his Wife, Edward had the support of TWO brothers & Warwick.
> >
> >Carol:
> >
> >Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here.
> >
> >Arthur:
> >>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury. [snip]
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >It's true that some biographers assign Richard, aged eighteen, a limited involvement in the death of Henry VI. but if Henry was murdered (which is likely but not proven), it would have been on Edward's orders (and Richard, who at that time idolized his much older brother, would not have questioned him). But there is no proof of his involvement in the death of Henry VI, only a report that he was seen at the Tower with many others near the time that Henry died (which could mean that he attended a council meeting on the matter). But the records for the expenses of maintaining Henry indicate that Henry died while Richard was away chasing his traitor cousin, the Bastard of Fauconberg.
> >
> >As for Edward of Lancaster, *all* contemporary sources have him dying on the field of battle. One hostile Lancastrian source has him killed by George of Clarence's men fleeing the battle. Not one source (and there are at least four) mentions an eighteen-year-old boy "murdering" a seventeen-year-old boy or any murder at all. You can watch that tale building through the various sources but I won't detail that nonsense here. And even those very late Tudor sources that have Richard involved in that "murder" have him acting with others in front of Edward, a very unlikely scenario.
> >
> >Arthur, my friend, thank you for not shouting, but it looks as if you used Wikipedia as your source for these "murders," too. The facts are very different from the Tudor propaganda, which you are echoing here.
> >
> >Please, if you haven't done so, read a modern biography of Richard III. Not even a rather hostile biographer like Charles Ross blames Richard for the deaths of Edward of Lancaster or Henry VI--or has him present at battles that occurred when he was eight years old, for which we can blame Shakespeare.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Margaret Beaufort's vows of chastity make me wonder if she had such a terrible time of it giving birth to Henry that she was terrified of having to go through it again. Post Traumatic Birth Disorder? If so, staying away from sex might seem a sensible option. Piety offered the perfect excuse. In a man's world, women had to do what they could to protect themselves.

Sandra

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort


> I'm sorry, Vickie, that was a cheap joke and I made it anyway. The
> American South has the rep for being inhabited by a bunch of intolerant
> boobs--and Texas is right in there with the boobiest of them--but the
> world headquarters of the white supremacist movement is now in Idaho, of
> all unlikely places.

In the days when I had my little occult shop I had an American male
supremacist turn up and lecture me on how it was wrong for me, a woman, to
be running my own business. He wouldn't go away so in the end I said "You
are what is technically known as 'a nutter' and if you don't clear off I
shall call the police" and then physically manahndled him out of the door
and locked it behind him.

Beware, incidentally, of the word "boobs" which in British English means
"breasts". A twit here is a booby, not a boob.

I have just looked on Amazon for the Hours. There are 3 copies available & the cheapest is priced at £189,99. The most expensive costs £513.75. All copies are in the USA. Help.
If there is so much interest in sources for Ricardian studies maybe the R3 Societies could reprint some of them so that they become available at a sensible price. Any advice on how to start & whom to contact?
I suppose this should be a new topic.
Jan.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > Okay, I checked last night. Someone did cross out "Ricardus" but not "regem" in the prayer, which suggests that it was not Margaret Beaufort.
> >
> > "In the honour of God and St Edmund, pray for Margaret Richmond" is written on an end fly-leaf.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But not in the prayer itself.
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > The prayer was copied for him into his own Book of Hours with his own name included twice in near-perfect Latin in a very neat scribal hand.
>
> Claire:
> > P T-C says "in a rough hand imitating the earlier script of the book", but does believe it was written in for Richard himself rather than the previous owner (probably Ann), so you're probably right that it was his personally and had drifted from its original use (accto P C-T) as a prayer for women in childbirth. I wish I had a photo' of the prayer (as opposed to the illuminations, which are in the catalogue) to see whether Richard's name is in the same hand as the body of the prayer or not.
> >
> > The full text of the prayer in Latin and in English is in the back of the catalogue.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> The prayer itself (the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs book contains a photograph of the first page) is beautifully copied, and, yes, "Ricardus regem" is in the same hand ("The presence of the king's name *in the hand of the scribe* suggests a wish to give the prayer a personal application," p. 73), but that page is not photographed. The only part "in a rough hand" is the first part of the prayer which someone has supplied because the page is missing (clearly visible in the photograph). If you're interested, I strongly suggest that you read the detailed and scholarly "Hours of Richard III" by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, both scholars of the first order. And the book itself is beautiful though, unfortunately, most of the illustrations are in black and white. (My copy of the book says that it cost 12.99 pounds though I would have paid for it in U.S. dollars. It probably costs about twice that now but is worth every penny.)
>
> As for the prayer being for women in childbirth, clearly not or neither Richard nor his contemporary rulers, Ferdinand and Maximillian, would have included it in their books of hours if it were written for such a specific and inappropriate occasion. If the full text is in the catalogue, there's no point in quoting it in full here since you can read it for yourself. But just the beginning is sufficient to indicate that it has a much more general application and would appeal particularly to a man in a position of power threatened by enemies: "O most sweet Lord Jesus . . . deign to release me from the affliction, temptation, grief, sickness, need, and danger in which I stand, and give me counsel. . . . [D]eign to make and keep concord between me and my enemies, to show me and pour over me your grace and glory, and deign to assuage, turn aside, destroy, and bring to nothing the hatred they bear towards me."
>
> It's easy to see, just from this small snippet, why this particular prayer would appeal to Richard and why he would want it copied into his personal book of hours--with his own name as an integral part of the prayer. As I said earlier, the authors suggest that Richard's confessor copied it for him, and I think that's very likely the case. The fact that it says "King Richard" and not "Richard Gloucestre" shows that it was added to the book after his coronation, and the repetition of "dolor" (grief) in his copy but no other suggests that it was written at least after his son's death and possibly after his wife's as well.
>
> If the prayer did start as a prayer for women in childbirth (and I get no such impression from Sutton and Visser-Fuchs), it drifted a long way from that beginning as it evolved over the centuries. The authors state that parts of the prayer are very old (a version of the part about Daniel in the lion's den and similar Old Testament miracles was used by Charlemagne), but the version used by Richard (not counting the special features unique to his version) dates only to the mid-fourteenth century. One copy credits the prayer to Saint Augustine (who, we can safely assume, never endured childbirth), but the authors suspect that this attribution is mistaken.
>
> The purpose of the prayer appears to be to provide comfort not only through the act of reciting it but through belief in its effectiveness. Prayer was a powerful psychological tool for medieval Catholics. I suspect that it kept Richard, his mother, and many other pious people sane in a world where death was much more familiar than it is to us. (I speak as someone who knows the pain of bereavement.)
>
> Carol
>

Plenty of kids in the UK still are if their parents are wealthy enough to send them to boarding school.  I used to work with a guy who said he cried for days after his parents sent him off to school at the age of seven but he also said that in retrospect he was glad they did.  Personally I think that's too young, I'd send them at 11 though.
 
 

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 0:18
Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort

Gracious, that has to be so hard on everyone. But, it was the norm, so probably the children adjusted. I cannot imagine being separated from my parents so very young.

On Mar 6, 2013, at 5:13 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort

> In addition to marrying off (or betrothing) their children at very young
> ages, many upper-class parents of Richard's time sent their children off
> to live in other people's houses.

Well, it was the norm for British families in the raj to send their children
back to the UK to be educated when they were about seven (also to remove
them from the threat of tropical diseases) and they often didn't see them
again until they were sixteen, unless the parents came back to the UK for a
few months on leave. My father was sent from Burma to his aunt in
Kilmarnock when he was 3½, and thence to a boarding school in Ramsgate
(which is as far from Kilmarnock as it's possible to get without falling off
into the sea) when he was 6½.









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

As Carol says there is a lack of hard evidence but seemingly Edward did not like Buckingham (he gave him no office other than during Clarence's sentence to save Richard having to be in charge of the Tower at that time and a bit of ceremonial at the time of Shrewsbury's marriage) and Buckingham had also had some of his lands taken by Edward; I think the 'old wife' thing is a bit of a deviance. If he bumbled I reckon he bumbled with a chip on his shoulder and his speech could well indicate that he thought he had more talent than Richard, whereas Edward had been a different kettle of fish. If he did he got it badly wrong. H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 



--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> I thought the answer was that the instant news of the death of Edward IV hit the countryside, Buckingham wrote Richard of Gloucester, asking what he could do to help. Richard told him to bring all the muscle he could pack and meet him up north, which Buckingham did. He was Richard's good right hand up until Richard decided to send Morton to Buckingham's place to wait out house arrest.
>
> Buckingham is kind of a cipher, the way I read the historical record; he seems to have been happily bumbling obscurely around Wales, avoiding his wife, for years until Edward died, and then he just... became the vice president of the entire damn country. He was the one who made what was by all accounts an utterly magnificent speech putting Richard forward as the true king of England. It certainly blew back the ears of the noted legislative and judicial audience who heard it. That implies some kind of preexisting talent and no little knowledge of both law and rhetoric.

Carol responds:

The actual correspondence doesn't exist; all we have is Mancini (I don't think Croyland discusses it). Apparently, though, rather than asking Buckingham to "bring all the muscle he could," Richard asked him to limit his escort to match his own, which was, IIRC, three hundred men in mourning, not armor. The arrest of Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn was achieved without the use of force.

As for Buckingham's speech blowing the ears off the audience, it seems likely, as Audrey Williamson notes, that his listeners were already convinced. Whether they believed the precontract story or not, most would have wanted a man whose bloodline, experience, and integrity were unquestioned to lead them and prevent the civil war that was almost inevitable under a minor king, especially given the factionalism of Edward IV's court. (Buckingham had never before delivered a speech, and his "eloquence" apparently consists of never stopping once to spit!)

Carol

Yes, I think we're in nearly the same place - mercurial is the word. The other person in all this of course is Catesby. I have him dashing round with his bundles of papers to Buckingham, Hastings, Clarence (earlier), the Butlers and gawd knows who else. You can imagine Hastings asking him how George is doing today, or what Buckingham's up to. He was in a very powerful position, this almost invisible lawyer; a bit like the local doctor going round and sharing tales about everyone's ailments. A good model for the Court plotters of the H8 era.    
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:17
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham. Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers.  I didn't want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes, Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting, but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
him, given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close.  H. 

Carol responds:

Well, there's the theory that Buckingham reminded Richard of George, but I don't know of any direct evidence for that. It may have been actual proof of a Woodville conspiracy rather than power of personality that convinced Richard to arrest Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn. In any case, Buckingham showed up just at the point when Richard needed an ally, he may have brought some key information that led to the arrest of Rivers, et al., and he was certainly of the dwindling blood royal, a fact that was clearly important to Richard (and to Buckingham himself). Also, he was the most important peer in the realm next to Richard himself, yet he'd been given almost no role in government by Edward IV. (Did Edward know or suspect something that Richard didn't?) Richard may have felt that Buckingham had been unjustly pushed aside and tried to make up for it by giving him rewards and offices that he thought should have been his under Edward. Also, of course, he was
rewarding him for his seeming loyalty at Stony Stratford and in council, supporting both his protectorship and later, his kingship. How much influence Buckingham actually had, we don't know, but seemingly enough that Hastings resented and possibly feared him (and no doubt envied his rewards as well since his own were meager by comparison. If we take the Hastings plot as real, and I do, Buckingham's death was included in it along with Richard's.) We don't know how Buckingham felt about his Woodville wife, but Richard may well have viewed him as another Woodville victim or pawn.

That Buckingham was mercurial and ambitious like George of Clarence seems undeniable, but whether he was plotting all along to betray Richard or was at first just trying to be on the winning side (a la the Stanleys) is anybody's guess. He may have promoted Richard's kingship knowing that Edward V would blame him as much as Richard for the death of Anthony Woodville. He certainly didn't want Henry Tudor as king no matter what More would have us believe. I do think that if anyone killed Richard's nephews, it was probably Buckingham, who, as Constable of England, had access to the Tower and would not have been refused entrance by Brackenbury, Constable of the Tower.

The problem is that we have so few facts to go on and only the reports of ill-informed and biased sources to go on.

Carol

Doug, I think that's a good point about Richard thinking Buckingham had the same views as him because he didn't frequent Court. He might not have known that Edward in fact didn't trust Buckingham (why we wonder, given his royal blood) and that Edward had taken some of Buckingham's lands which gave him reason for a grudge. And of course, if Buckingham also complained about his forced Woodville marriage Richard might have thought he had a fellow believer that the Woodvilles were unscrupulous. Buckingham could use this when it was indeed found that they had been plotting. H



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 15:18
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this a
few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such a
hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for Buckingham.
Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part in
the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as the
psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly embrace
Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have leaned
on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the message
route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were plotting,
but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince him,
given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"

Doug here:
Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption by
Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
"illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal bloodline. We
know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so perhaps
he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
solidarity", I guess.
One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences with
his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I recall,
Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E of
Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided whenever
possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that* was
a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also* disapproved
of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based on
Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
Doug

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Yes, I think we're in nearly the same place - mercurial is the word. The
> other person in all this of course is Catesby. I have him dashing round
> with his bundles of papers to Buckingham, Hastings, Clarence (earlier),
> the Butlers and gawd knows who else. You can imagine Hastings asking him
> how George is doing today, or what Buckingham's up to. He was in a very
> powerful position, this almost invisible lawyer; a bit like the local
> doctor going round and sharing tales about everyone's ailments. A good
> model for the Court plotters of the H8 era.

Perhaps it was Richard's interest in the law which drew Catesby to become a
friend and supporter: they probably had long geeky discussions about the
meaning of this or that obscure clause.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard


> Doug, I think that's a good point about Richard thinking Buckingham had
> the same views as him because he didn't frequent Court. He might not have
> known that Edward in fact didn't trust Buckingham (why we wonder, given
> his royal blood)

Well, if I'm right about Buckingham being a drunk that would be sufficient
reason. It wouldn't require him to be disloyal or suspect in any way like
that, just unreliable as far as actual performance went. And if he was a
binge drinker - somebody who was sober and competent for weeks or months at
a time and then went on a two-week bender - it might take a while for
Richard to realise what the problem was.

Yes I've read the Deceivers too and I think it paints a very probable scenario. I think I said when I joined this forum that I felt that a lot of characters in 1483 were victims  of circumstance. Who would know Edward would die so soon (though he does seem to have had quite a bit of illness), who would know that the Woodvilles, Buckingham, Hastings, would run round like headless chickens and self-destruct? And who could guess that Richard's child and wife would die so soon? If you had a calm head and were a survivor, like Morton and MB it must really have seemed that God was on your side indeed, and anyone with a hint of an unstable character ie Buckingham, was very open to persuasion and exploitation. H.  


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 18:17
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

I doubt that Buckingham would have supported the Tydder's claim to the throne as he did actually have a claim to the throne himself as he was legitimately descended from Edward III. Another scenario could be that Morton played up Buckingham's claim to the throne to encourage him to rebel so that Richard would defeat him and hey presto another stumbling block in the Tydder's road to the throne is eliminated.

It has always seemed very odd to me that Edward dies in April 1483 and within two and a half years all Tudor's obstacles are gone. I read somewhere, and I can't for the life of me remember where, I thought it was Charles Oman's book about Warwick but I checked and it wasn't, that after Tewkesbury MB considered her son to be the Lancastrian heir. Now as we all know he was not, there was no Lancastrian heir. It ocurred to me that it would not be easy to take the throne away from Edward who would stand firmly in her way. Also it wasn't only Edward, who else would she have to get rid of to be sure of getting the throne for her son. Clarence was helpfully disposed of by Edward but Richard and his son would probably have been on her list. It goes without saying that the Woodvilles and the Princes would be on the list and Buckingham who had a claim to the throne. The other person who ocurred to me was Hastings because he would never have stood by and allowed
Edward's son to have the throne taken by the Tydder. He was obviously not happy when Richard lawfully took the throne. All these people were either dead or in exile and not powerful enough (in the case of the Woodvilles), in two and a half years. Geoffrey Richardson's book "The Deceivers" is based on this scenario and he puts MB's plotting at the centre of it all. Just another theory with tiny bits of possible evidence.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm very much where you are - Morton was an opportunist who I guess was good at detecting weaknesses in others. He'd been around a long time and seen a lot in both Courts. And somewhere in all this we've got Catesby, who worked for all of them and Clarence as well. Fascinating stuff - quite as good as the machinations of H8's Court.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
> Thing is, though, I don't think Buckingham would have needed Morton to
> remind him of such a thing (though Morton may very well have been able to
> play him, but even then....).
>
> For what it's worth, I'll throw in the reasoning I used for my play,
> _Loyalty Lies_, which I drafted in around 2000, and which tossed its
> reasoning before the public in a small production a couple of years later.
> In the line of action and reasoning I used, the friction and competition
> between Hastings and Buckingham for Richard's protection/favor, etc., leads
> to Buckingham convincing Richard that Hastings was morally responsible for
> Edward's death (by way of indulging his appetites as a distraction from
> condemning George to death).  It is because of this that Hastings turns
> against Richard (but not toward the Woodvilles) and Richard condemns him in
> the way he does.  Morton, who is no dummy, deduces this and, at Brecon,
> corrals Buckingham into supporting Henry Tudor on the strength of being
> able show Buckingham that Richard could very well find out Buckingham's
> manipulations and that Richard might do to Buckingham what he did to
> Hastings.
>
> It worked in the context of the play, and might be worth batting around
> (especially since I have to re-write both my Ricardian plays now!!).
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, ricard1an wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > It is a while since I read, Kendall, Ross, Clive and Scofield but I think
> > that the impression I got from them all was that Buckingham's appearence on
> > Richard's journey to London was quite a surprise but that he was loyal to
> > Richard until Richard went on progress and he went to his castle at Brecon
> > where Morton was in his custody. It was assumed that Morton had turned him
> > against Richard and had mentioned that Buckingham had a claim to the throne
> > too. I think, if I remember rightly, he had asked for Morton to be given
> > over to his custody. I may be wrong as it is years since I read these books.
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > "My emphasis was on the word 'presumed'. We had a discussion about this
> > a
> > > few weeks ago. I take all you say, but I'm really interested in why such
> > a
> > > hitherto sensible person such as Richard would have fallen for
> > Buckingham.
> > > Yes he'd met him before certainly as the two of them played a major part
> > in
> > > the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbay, but Richard, as
> > the
> > > psychologists say, was a man who leaned on old friends. Why suddenly
> > embrace
> > > Buckingham on the death of Edward? You'd have thought he would have
> > leaned
> > > on Lovell and Hastings. And he had shared an exile with Rivers. I didn't
> > > want to diversify into the Woodville conspiracy thing or go down the
> > message
> > > route again. What I'm asking under this heading is why Richard trusted
> > > Buckingham (who later betrayed him) basically out of the blue. Yes,
> > > Buckingham or someone could have told him that the Woodvilles were
> > plotting,
> > > but Buckingham must have had great powers of personality to convince
> > him,
> > > given that the two had never (as far as we know) been at all close. H"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Could Richard's attitude towards Buckingham been based on a presumption
> > by
> > > Richard that Buckingham would be as averse as Richard in seeing an
> > > "illegitimate" king on the throne? If I understand it correctly, it was
> > > well-known that Buckingham placed great store in his own royal
> > bloodline. We
> > > know Richard felt strongly about legitimacy, rights *and* duties, so
> > perhaps
> > > he, mistakenly, presumed Buckingham felt the same? A sort of "royal
> > > solidarity", I guess.
> > > One can't be blamed for thinking, though, that Richard's experiences
> > with
> > > his brothers would have tipped him off about expecting a fellow royal's
> > > sense of duty and/or responsibility to be the same as his! As best I
> > recall,
> > > Richard's dealing with fellow male "royals" was limited to E4, George, E
> > of
> > > Westminster and Buckingham and the first two he, seemingly, avoided
> > whenever
> > > possible. Buckingham also avoided E4's Court, did he not? Perhaps *that*
> > was
> > > a major part of Richard's trust - he assumed Buckingham *also*
> > disapproved
> > > of E4's Court and lifestyle, when Buckingham's "disapproval" was based
> > on
> > > Edward's promoting his Woodville relations, and *not* Buckingham?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, yes apparently he was made High Steward of England. Good point about the power of sentencing someone to death; if he was a bit 'strange' it could indeed have gone to his head. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 21:06
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He had a definite grudge about Edward because he felt he'd deprived him of some of the Bohun lands. Edward didn't like him or trust him either and only used him as Constable of the Tower when Clarence was being disposed of (which I think tells you a lot). [snip]

Carol responds:

Not Constable of the Tower but Constable of England (one of Richard's positions) so Buckingham could pronounce sentence of death on Clarence and Richard wouldn't have to. Which tells you a lot about all three men, actually. But, yes, the Bohun lands were part of the grudge against Edward as was. I suspect, the lack of power and influence despite his blood and wealth. The forced childhood marriage to Katherine Woodville may have been involved, too, though they did at least have a child together.

Later, Richard made Buckingham Constable of England, but I don't know if he ever had the chance to sentence anyone to death. If he did, maybe the power went to his head?

Carol

I would like to hope so.  Have you read the Perkin book by Arthurson (it's newer than Wroe)? It seems to come down in favour of Perkin being an imposter but it has a lot about the involvement of our friend Lessy etc. It's very dense with no index; it will take me weeks to get through (I peeped at the ending so I know his theory).


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 2:59
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with both of you. We can only ever guess, but my guess is that Buckingham still harboured a grudge against Edward, somehow down the line realised that Richard wasn't going to be quite as malleable as he perhaps once thought (perhaps he thought E's deputy was a northern innocent) and was got at by Morton, who fanned the flames of his greed. We shall probably never know but I find it one of the most fascinating parts of the whole story, including the fact that Buckingham might have killed the princes to get in with Richard and it badly misfired.  I still hover somewhere between that and that they did get abroad. I think the latter was almost certainly Richard's intention. H

Carol responds:

Or, if he killed them, he might have done it to clear the way for his own claim, knowing that the blame would fall on Richard if word of their deaths, or even suspicion of their deaths, got out. And he could, theoretically, have spread that rumor that they had been violently killed, "none knew how."

But I'm more and more inclined to the view that they escaped abroad as part of a plan involving Richard, Margaret, Tyrrell, and possibly Brampton (who certainly was involved after the fact if Perkin Warbeck was the younger nephew.

Carol

I dunno about a trial. It might cause an uproar just when he didn't want one; and Buckingham would have the chance to say that Richard made him do it. Unfortunately such mud would stick.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 3:57
Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 

See, I just can't see Richard not trying Buckingham for murder publicly if he had done away with Richard's nephews. I don't think Buckingham killed those kids and I don't think Richard did either. I think he sent 'em off to live with Auntie Meggins in Burgundy.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I agree with both of you. We can only ever guess, but my guess is that Buckingham still harboured a grudge against Edward, somehow down the line realised that Richard wasn't going to be quite as malleable as he perhaps once thought (perhaps he thought E's deputy was a northern innocent) and was got at by Morton, who fanned the flames of his greed. We shall probably never know but I find it one of the most fascinating parts of the whole story, including the fact that Buckingham might have killed the princes to get in with Richard and it badly misfired.  I still hover somewhere between that and that they did get abroad. I think the latter was almost certainly Richard's intention. H
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Or, if he killed them, he might have done it to clear the way for his own claim, knowing that the blame would fall on Richard if word of their deaths, or even suspicion of their deaths, got out. And he could, theoretically, have spread that rumor that they had been violently killed, "none knew how."
>
> But I'm more and more inclined to the view that they escaped abroad as part of a plan involving Richard, Margaret, Tyrrell, and possibly Brampton (who certainly was involved after the fact if Perkin Warbeck was the younger nephew.
>
> Carol
>

Never having killed anyone [Knowingly!!] It is difficult to assess the 'Fast Moving' world of Richard. 
However I am seventy in May & like the next person there ARE ALWAYS regrets looking back on both one's personal & professional life [Unless of course one is a total Psychopath!!].

Acts of 'Omission', [Perhaps more than 'Commission'] things better done differently etc. 
Of course 'Hindsight is always 20/20.

Richard was described as 'Pious' that being the case he must be assumed to have a conscience, 
Could more have been done to save Clarence, If he was not so much in the North could he have saved Edward's premature demise, The rift with Warwick. I am NOT his 'Confessor' so I cannot but guess. 

Like Richard I never knew my Father, like Richard my Father died in war, this in itself made the Rift & Death of Warwick & Edward extremely important. 

Sometimes if/when I enjoyed a degree of success in my professional life [Particularly as a senior 'Charge Nurse'] It was by applying MY personal experience to the life experiences of those in my charge.

As a very 'Junior' Student, I saw approaches to both staff & patients that I would never have employed myself, on one occasion I discussed this with my 'Mentor' who, wisely said sometimes it was better to learn from error  than from when everything was going well.
 

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 23:01
>Subject: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>--- In , Arthurian wrote:
>>
>>
>>    He was involved in the demise in the Tower of Henry VI a mentally ill man, albeit perhaps only as a 'Bystander'. Edward, Henry's Heir also 'Died' after Tewkesbury.
>>
>
>You're forgetting, though, that neither of those decisions was Richard's call, and that he was an 18-year-old at the time. An unusually experienced 18-year-old, yes, but an 18-year-old nonetheless!
>
>Still, I've always wondered to what extent the death of Henry VI in particular might have affected him. (If indeed it was suspicious - and, to me, the timing definitely is pretty suspicious...) No matter how devoted to his elder brother, Richard must have understood what a terrible thing it was, IF Henry was killed. At the very least it would have sunk in later on.
>
>I wonder if Henry's memory haunted him and whether his later preoccupation with justice might have had just a little to do with what happened back then. And he did have Henry reburied, after all...
>
>
>
>
>

Hey gal, I am in San Antonio, Carol D is in Kerrville until June.

On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:53 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



A handsome apology!

You guys can tune out for a sec, as this is way OT, but I thought I would tell you about my Houston. Yes, it's in Texas, and yes, it's known for the oil business (pronounced, until fairly recently, as "th'awl bidniss"), the rodeo, and urban sprawl, but this place can be pure magic.

One day, I was at the French Gourmet Bakery in a prosperous part of town (you stick a bunch of petroleum wealth in a swamp for a century and see if you don't end up with an air-conditioned arts complex downtown). The woman behind the counter was authentically French, and while she was bagging up a whole bunch o' baguettes, she was talking, in French, to a client standing at the counter with her back to me. The client, a sleek dark-haired woman, had on the only honest to God Chanel suit I had ever seen in my life. (People have asked me how I knew that's what it was, and all I can say is, when you see one, you too will have no doubt whatsoever that that's what you are looking at.)

She and the proprietor were chatting away in rapid-fire French, so fast and fluid I could only get every fifth word or so (to the disappointment of the missus, who expects me either to be able to gist or make up something entertaining.)

So, eventually, the proprietor and Mme.-de-Chanel-suit finished their enjoyable conversation, and the customer turned to leave.

She was Vietnamese.

And THAT is what Houston is like.

(I hope this kind of demonstrates that jokes about gap-toothed yokels have so little basis in reality, if they ever did, that it's impossible to regard Cletus in "The Simpsons" as an ethnographically accurate portrait of the rural American mobile-home dweller.)

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh Vickie, did not mean to roller skate over any particular state, and now we have. I think every city, state, and country have a sector of cultured, erudite and educated people, along with a fair number of them who are not the brightest lights in the string. That is what I should have said. Mea culpa, and my skates are in storage!

I'm hoping this exact topic will be part of the RIII Society's discussions with the city of Leicester about donating their archive. The "Hours", the "Coronation", the Parliament Rolls, and Harleian are untouchable for less than $150 apiece. Too, donation would enable them to update each with high-quality scans and audiovisual supplements in a Web presentation.

--- In , "janmulrenan@..." <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> I have just looked on Amazon for the Hours. There are 3 copies available & the cheapest is priced at £189,99. The most expensive costs £513.75. All copies are in the USA. Help.
> If there is so much interest in sources for Ricardian studies maybe the R3 Societies could reprint some of them so that they become available at a sensible price. Any advice on how to start & whom to contact?
> I suppose this should be a new topic.
> Jan.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > > > Okay, I checked last night. Someone did cross out "Ricardus" but not "regem" in the prayer, which suggests that it was not Margaret Beaufort.
> > >
> > > "In the honour of God and St Edmund, pray for Margaret Richmond" is written on an end fly-leaf.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > But not in the prayer itself.
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > > > The prayer was copied for him into his own Book of Hours with his own name included twice in near-perfect Latin in a very neat scribal hand.
> >
> > Claire:
> > > P T-C says "in a rough hand imitating the earlier script of the book", but does believe it was written in for Richard himself rather than the previous owner (probably Ann), so you're probably right that it was his personally and had drifted from its original use (accto P C-T) as a prayer for women in childbirth. I wish I had a photo' of the prayer (as opposed to the illuminations, which are in the catalogue) to see whether Richard's name is in the same hand as the body of the prayer or not.
> > >
> > > The full text of the prayer in Latin and in English is in the back of the catalogue.
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The prayer itself (the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs book contains a photograph of the first page) is beautifully copied, and, yes, "Ricardus regem" is in the same hand ("The presence of the king's name *in the hand of the scribe* suggests a wish to give the prayer a personal application," p. 73), but that page is not photographed. The only part "in a rough hand" is the first part of the prayer which someone has supplied because the page is missing (clearly visible in the photograph). If you're interested, I strongly suggest that you read the detailed and scholarly "Hours of Richard III" by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, both scholars of the first order. And the book itself is beautiful though, unfortunately, most of the illustrations are in black and white. (My copy of the book says that it cost 12.99 pounds though I would have paid for it in U.S. dollars. It probably costs about twice that now but is worth every penny.)
> >
> > As for the prayer being for women in childbirth, clearly not or neither Richard nor his contemporary rulers, Ferdinand and Maximillian, would have included it in their books of hours if it were written for such a specific and inappropriate occasion. If the full text is in the catalogue, there's no point in quoting it in full here since you can read it for yourself. But just the beginning is sufficient to indicate that it has a much more general application and would appeal particularly to a man in a position of power threatened by enemies: "O most sweet Lord Jesus . . . deign to release me from the affliction, temptation, grief, sickness, need, and danger in which I stand, and give me counsel. . . . [D]eign to make and keep concord between me and my enemies, to show me and pour over me your grace and glory, and deign to assuage, turn aside, destroy, and bring to nothing the hatred they bear towards me."
> >
> > It's easy to see, just from this small snippet, why this particular prayer would appeal to Richard and why he would want it copied into his personal book of hours--with his own name as an integral part of the prayer. As I said earlier, the authors suggest that Richard's confessor copied it for him, and I think that's very likely the case. The fact that it says "King Richard" and not "Richard Gloucestre" shows that it was added to the book after his coronation, and the repetition of "dolor" (grief) in his copy but no other suggests that it was written at least after his son's death and possibly after his wife's as well.
> >
> > If the prayer did start as a prayer for women in childbirth (and I get no such impression from Sutton and Visser-Fuchs), it drifted a long way from that beginning as it evolved over the centuries. The authors state that parts of the prayer are very old (a version of the part about Daniel in the lion's den and similar Old Testament miracles was used by Charlemagne), but the version used by Richard (not counting the special features unique to his version) dates only to the mid-fourteenth century. One copy credits the prayer to Saint Augustine (who, we can safely assume, never endured childbirth), but the authors suspect that this attribution is mistaken.
> >
> > The purpose of the prayer appears to be to provide comfort not only through the act of reciting it but through belief in its effectiveness. Prayer was a powerful psychological tool for medieval Catholics. I suspect that it kept Richard, his mother, and many other pious people sane in a world where death was much more familiar than it is to us. (I speak as someone who knows the pain of bereavement.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Regarding 'Women as Chattels'.

<It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!>


  Our 'Joint Countries' have & Still are, Spending both Lives & Treasure to change things with 
Taliban & Others.

  In some parts of the World 'Female Circumcision' is still practised, India, Progressing as it Undoubtedly Is, Has recently had Women 'Raped to Death,' with Very Poor response from the law, 
Until that is WORLD PUBLICITY [I was criticised by one forum member for using capital letters as this was 'Shouting' [I had Not meant to 'Shout' just to emphasise my points.] 

The belief that 'Nothing Can be Done' is the counsel of Despair, 
'Evil Triumphs where good men do Nothing'.

   Plainly there are many good people on this Forum, trying to right what they perceive as a 600 year old wrong. Wrongs, even those as old as those laid on Richard, rankle & irritate, 
Strongly suggest the need for a remedy.

  There ARE things that CAN be done, Out there in 'Cyberspace' are 'Many Petitions', 
some to Governments, some to others. [Tourist Boards etc] 
Let them know YOU Know & You Care. [A 'Young Girl' in Pakistan [similar age to Margaret Beaufort] was shot in the head for wanting an education] 

Sorry for the Rant,


 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 3:33
>Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
> 
>[Sigh.] Of all the states to choose to pick on... I apologize formally to Alabamians. I should have said South Carolina.
>
>(For those who are unfamiliar with American regional pride, perhaps this will be an illustration. The unofficial motto of Texas, which is described as a "low-tax, low-service state", is "Thank God for Mississippi.")
>
>--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>>
>> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>>
>> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>> >
>> > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>> >
>> > Kind Regards,
>> >
>> > Arthur.
>> >
>> > >________________________________
>> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@ >
>> > >To:
>> > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>> > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>> > >
>> > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>> > >
>> > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>> > >
>> > >--- In , liz williams wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> From: Claire M Jordan
>> > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>> > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>> > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>> > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>> > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>> > >> in her early to mid teens.]
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Claire I might agree with you except the Stanleys were notorious for blowing with the wind and changing sides, often at the last minute, so this was par for the course.  For that reason alone I can't for the life of me understand why Richard trusted them.  .

 
I'd say if they "didn't" do it for self serving reasons, it was a first.
 
 
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 21:47
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

 
From: "A J Hibbard" mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard

> Whether it is possible to take everyone at their best in the story of
> Richard & his times, I remain to be convinced.

No, but we can't assume we should necessarily take them at their worst,
either. And the fact that the Stanleys didn't, apparently, openly change
sides until it looked as if Henry Tudor was going to be killed suggests that
they felt some kind of obligation to protect a family member. If their
motive had been self-serving then when it looked as if Henry was about to be
wiped out you would expect them to have come in on *Richard's* side.

That was exactly my point. A court can rule these things illegal, and most think barbaric and unthinkable. But it begs the questions, who or what body will make things change? There is no Army large enough to be in all these places. The change has to begin internally. I have several wonderful friends from India, and they have been very vocal on FB, and with petitions. Actually, change just might come there. But what about in say, Afghanistan? This is a huge moral question, probably not for this group to take on, at least in this forum. IMHO....

On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:12 AM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



Regarding 'Women as Chattels'.

<It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!>

Our 'Joint Countries' have & Still are, Spending both Lives & Treasure to change things with
Taliban & Others.

In some parts of the World 'Female Circumcision' is still practised, India, Progressing as it Undoubtedly Is, Has recently had Women 'Raped to Death,' with Very Poor response from the law,
Until that is WORLD PUBLICITY [I was criticised by one forum member for using capital letters as this was 'Shouting' [I had Not meant to 'Shout' just to emphasise my points.]

The belief that 'Nothing Can be Done' is the counsel of Despair,
'Evil Triumphs where good men do Nothing'.

Plainly there are many good people on this Forum, trying to right what they perceive as a 600 year old wrong. Wrongs, even those as old as those laid on Richard, rankle & irritate,
Strongly suggest the need for a remedy.

There ARE things that CAN be done, Out there in 'Cyberspace' are 'Many Petitions',
some to Governments, some to others. [Tourist Boards etc]
Let them know YOU Know & You Care. [A 'Young Girl' in Pakistan [similar age to Margaret Beaufort] was shot in the head for wanting an education]

Sorry for the Rant,


Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 3:33
>Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>
>
>
>[Sigh.] Of all the states to choose to pick on... I apologize formally to Alabamians. I should have said South Carolina.
>
>(For those who are unfamiliar with American regional pride, perhaps this will be an illustration. The unofficial motto of Texas, which is described as a "low-tax, low-service state", is "Thank God for Mississippi.")
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>>
>> Oh, you've been to Alabama?
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>> >
>> > It might, or the International Courts, but who would supervise that? And how on earth would any such body make that happen in countries or societies where women are chattel, are ritually abused, etc. And for those of us who are Yanks, that does not count the states where peoples teeth and IQ are about the same number!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Arthurian
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:09 AM
>> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Does the 'United Nations Charter on the Right's of the Child' involve an age, Seems to me it Should.
>> >
>> > Kind Regards,
>> >
>> > Arthur.
>> >
>> > >________________________________
>> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@ >
>> > >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > >Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:00
>> > >Subject: Re: Age of Consent: M Beaufort
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The missus, who is an attorney, says that this is what the notion of the "age of consent" is all about: by law, at least in the U.S., no eleven-year-old can give informed consent to sexual activity. (Ages of consent vary from place to place, and by gender, of course, but we are talking about someone the theoretical age of Margaret Beaufort.) It doesn't matter how alluring a pedophile considers a child's behavior, any contact constitutes criminal sexual assault.
>> > >
>> > >Those are our standards now; that children were not similarly regarded as incapable of granting informed consent in Margaret Beaufort's era shows how the notion of childhood as a protected stage of life has changed over time, and also what killing pressure there was among nobility to ensure inheritance.
>> > >
>> > >It does not make me want to go back in time to become a princess.
>> > >
>> > >--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> From: Claire M Jordan
>> > >> [Does that possibly imply MB had PTSD? Yes, very probably - she had a child
>> > >> when she was twelve, and her later life suggested she wasn't a very sexual
>> > >> being and not likely to have been willingly sexually active as soon as she
>> > >> hit puberty, so probably she was raped when she was eleven, and then her
>> > >> only child was taken away from her when he was a toddler and she was still
>> > >> in her early to mid teens.]
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Liz replied: Put like that it's very easy to feel sorry for her (at least when she was younger). I'm sure I read somewhere once that although marriages weren't normally consummated until the girl was 14 or 15, it was said that both Margaret and Edmund Tudor didn't want to wait until she was older. I have to say that there is no way I believe that and even if an 11 year girl did want to (not that I expect the poor kid had "any" idea of what sex meant) any decent man would have waited. I have to say that all the Tudors sound like a thoroughly unpleasant lot.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

   Marriage/Premature Sex/Childbirth, Sadly remains a serious problem in parts the developing world, perhaps a problem that can inform modern historians..

   As a male, Albeit with a degree of professional understanding of the anatomical issues involved, 
an issue that is so horrifying in all aspects that we turn away and can gloss over. 

  A situation, though in the case of Margaret Beaufort hundreds of years ago, one that must have lifelong moulded her views on both men & marriage, let alone the politics of the English court. 

   Even today in England, multiple cases of child abuse/rape when brought to justice, Thankfully reminded the authorities & wider public that there is no such thing as 'Child Prostitutes' just 'Child Victims of Rape & Abuse'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 7:39
>Subject: Re: Re: Psychologists analyze Richard
>
>
> 
>Margaret Beaufort's vows of chastity make me wonder if she had such a terrible time of it giving birth to Henry that she was terrified of having to go through it again. Post Traumatic Birth Disorder? If so, staying away from sex might seem a sensible option. Piety offered the perfect excuse. In a man's world, women had to do what they could to protect themselves.
>
>Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>