Another Ricardian motto

I just came across another of Richard's mottoes, this one written in his Wycliffe Bible, in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field": "A vos me ly." I understand the first few words ("to me your"), but what does "ly" mean? The motto and signature appear in a photograph but if there's a translation, I can't find it. Does anyone know anything about this motto or its significance?

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:41 PM
Subject: Another Ricardian motto


> I just came across another of Richard's mottoes, this one written in his
> Wycliffe Bible, in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field": "A
> vos me ly." I understand the first few words ("to me your"), but what does
> "ly" mean?

If "loyaulte me lie" means "loyalty binds me", surely "a vos me ly" must
mean "I am bound to you" ("to you I bound am")?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> I just came across another of Richard's mottoes, this one written in his Wycliffe Bible, in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field": "A vos me ly." I understand the first few words ("to me your"), but what does "ly" mean? The motto and signature appear in a photograph but if there's a translation, I can't find it. Does anyone know anything about this motto or its significance?
>
> Carol
>

"Ly"/"lie" - so "I bind myself to you".

It was yet another phrase typical of love-tokens of the time - though of course it could also be meant literally in its context, binding himself to God?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:41 PM
Subject: Another Ricardian motto

> I just came across another of Richard's mottoes, this one written in his
> Wycliffe Bible, in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field": "A
> vos me ly." I understand the first few words ("to me your"), but what does
> "ly" mean?

> If "loyaulte me lie" means "loyalty binds me", surely "a vos me ly" must
mean "I am bound to you" ("to you I bound am")?

Second thought - if it's the other way round and it's "You to me bound", and
it's in a Bible, perhaps it's related to that strange old hymn which begins

I bind unto myself today
The strong name of the Trinity
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:41 PM
> Subject: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > I just came across another of Richard's mottoes, this one written in his
> > Wycliffe Bible, in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field": "A
> > vos me ly." I understand the first few words ("to me your"), but what does
> > "ly" mean?
>
> If "loyaulte me lie" means "loyalty binds me", surely "a vos me ly" must
> mean "I am bound to you" ("to you I bound am")?
>

Basically, either "I bind myself to you" or "it binds me to you", but sounds more like the former. As in, " a vos [je] me lie".

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> Basically, either "I bind myself to you" or "it binds me to you", but
> sounds more like the former. As in, " a vos [je] me lie".

It sounds like this is the prototype for "loyaulte me lie", doesn't it?
It's him trying out and refining his new motto.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

>
> If "loyaulte me lie" means "loyalty binds me", surely "a vos me ly" must mean "I am bound to you" ("to you I bound am")?
>
Carol responds:

Then "ly" is just a variation of "lie"? But isn't "vos" possessive? Richard would not have made such a serious grammatical error. Also, "me" is objective case and can't be the subject of the sentence.

"To [what is] yours bind me"?

I'll Google it and see what I find.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > Basically, either "I bind myself to you" or "it binds me to you", but
> > sounds more like the former. As in, " a vos [je] me lie".
>
> It sounds like this is the prototype for "loyaulte me lie", doesn't it?
> It's him trying out and refining his new motto.
>

It does, but it does appear in a specific (and fitting) context. I also find it curious that he'd use a motto with such strong amatory connotations. My own guess is that he's either referring specifically to God/the Bible itself, OR that it's some kind of a marriage/betrothal oath - written on the Bible to be, er, extra binding.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> >
> > If "loyaulte me lie" means "loyalty binds me", surely "a vos me ly" must mean "I am bound to you" ("to you I bound am")?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Then "ly" is just a variation of "lie"? But isn't "vos" possessive? Richard would not have made such a serious grammatical error. Also, "me" is objective case and can't be the subject of the sentence.
>
> "To [what is] yours bind me"?
>
> I'll Google it and see what I find.
>
> Carol
>

It certainly wasn't ungrammatical back then. "Vos" is possessive now, but back then vos/vous were just alternative spellings. And in Old/Middle French subjects were regularly omitted so it would have had an implied subject: "a vo[u]s [je] me lie".

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> Then "ly" is just a variation of "lie"? But isn't "vos" possessive?
> Richard would not have made such a serious grammatical error.

How do we know he wouldn't?

> "To [what is] yours bind me"?

Well, if the context is religious then "Bind me to what is yours" would make
sense - it would mean "Help me to do only godly things".

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I also find it curious that he'd use a motto with such strong amatory
> connotations.

Well, his first motto was something like "My desire is so great"....

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I also find it curious that he'd use a motto with such strong amatory
> connotations.

Actually, if the context isn't a sexual one then this style of motto casts
an interesting light on the very overheated letter supposedly written by
young Lizzie: maybe rather overheated language was just in fashion.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > Then "ly" is just a variation of "lie"? But isn't "vos" possessive?
> > Richard would not have made such a serious grammatical error.
>
> How do we know he wouldn't?
>
> > "To [what is] yours bind me"?
>
> Well, if the context is religious then "Bind me to what is yours" would make
> sense - it would mean "Help me to do only godly things".
>

Seriously, do take my word for it - this is one thing I can actually claim to know something about ;)

"A vos" definitely means "to you" and the common meaning of that phrase in the 15th century (as an inscription and in poetry) would have been "I bind myself to you".

Pansy wrote:

> It certainly wasn't ungrammatical back then. "Vos" is possessive now, but back then vos/vous were just alternative spellings. And in Old/Middle French subjects were regularly omitted so it would have had an implied subject: "a vo[u]s [je] me lie".

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Pansy. Do you know of any other instances of this motto? I couldn't find anything online.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > I also find it curious that he'd use a motto with such strong amatory
> > connotations.
>
> Well, his first motto was something like "My desire is so great"....
>

Hmm, I don't think you can get that from "tant le desieree"; it definitely has the implied subject "[j'ai] tant le desieree". (Or he/she/they/whoever have desired etc.)

Though who knows, perhaps spelling and grammar really weren't Richard's forte, and he had a very strange taste in mottoes - in which case he might have meant "his aunt has desired him" ;)

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote:
>
> > It certainly wasn't ungrammatical back then. "Vos" is possessive now, but back then vos/vous were just alternative spellings. And in Old/Middle French subjects were regularly omitted so it would have had an implied subject: "a vo[u]s [je] me lie".
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Pansy. Do you know of any other instances of this motto? I couldn't find anything online.
>
> Carol
>

Other instances of Richard's use of it? I don't know any.

But if you Google "a vous me lie", you'll find some examples of the phrase inscribed on jewellery.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> Hmm, I don't think you can get that from "tant le desieree"; it definitely
> has the implied subject "[j'ai] tant le desieree". (Or he/she/they/whoever
> have desired etc.)

Do you mean it means something like "They have desired [it] so much"?

If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
little love-hearts. But "Tant le desire[e]" turns up twice, so it must have
some personal meaning.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > Hmm, I don't think you can get that from "tant le desieree"; it definitely
> > has the implied subject "[j'ai] tant le desieree". (Or he/she/they/whoever
> > have desired etc.)
>
> Do you mean it means something like "They have desired [it] so much"?

No, I think "[I have] desired it so much" is most likely - just meant it could also (but less likely in this personal context) be he/she/they/whoever. Sorry I was unclear on that.

>
> If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
> little love-hearts.

I think writing it in the Bible implies something more serious than that; don't you?

But "Tant le desire[e]" turns up twice, so it must have
> some personal meaning.
>

Indeed. Though I wonder if that was one of those things that has a specific literary context first and then develops into something with a deeper personal meaning?

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
> little love-hearts.

> I think writing it in the Bible implies something more serious than that;
> don't you?

Depends how distracted/absent-minded he was. Carol's seen it - does it look
like something he wrote out with formal care and attention, or is it more
scribbly than that?

> Indeed. Though I wonder if that was one of those things that has a
> specific literary context first and then develops into something with a
> deeper personal meaning?

It occurs in one place written under a drawing of a boar which *may* be
Richard's own drawing, so it's possible it's a pun on the Tantony Pig, or
runt of the litter.

I wonder why he had so many mottos..... Maybe I am not phrasing this right but too many mottos makes them redundant , doesn't it? Was Richard trying to come up with the "perfect" motto and the rest of them were the part of the process?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 10, 2013, at 9:53 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
> > If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> > Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
> > little love-hearts.
>
> > I think writing it in the Bible implies something more serious than that;
> > don't you?
>
> Depends how distracted/absent-minded he was. Carol's seen it - does it look
> like something he wrote out with formal care and attention, or is it more
> scribbly than that?
>
> > Indeed. Though I wonder if that was one of those things that has a
> > specific literary context first and then develops into something with a
> > deeper personal meaning?
>
> It occurs in one place written under a drawing of a boar which *may* be
> Richard's own drawing, so it's possible it's a pun on the Tantony Pig, or
> runt of the litter.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I wonder why he had so many mottos..... Maybe I am not phrasing this right
> but too many mottos makes them redundant , doesn't it?

You mean, the purpose of having a motto is to have a single snappy phrase
which will be uniquely identified with you, so having several mottoes
defeats the object of the exercise and downgrades them to merely "Things I
often say"...?

Yes!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:42 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
> > I wonder why he had so many mottos..... Maybe I am not phrasing this right
> > but too many mottos makes them redundant , doesn't it?
>
> You mean, the purpose of having a motto is to have a single snappy phrase
> which will be uniquely identified with you, so having several mottoes
> defeats the object of the exercise and downgrades them to merely "Things I
> often say"...?
>
>

While I am sure 'Mottoes' are likely to be correct [especially at the top of the tree] Spelling in 'General' had Not standardised by Richard's day as many will know.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 0:56
>Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>> Pansy wrote:
>>
>> > It certainly wasn't ungrammatical back then. "Vos" is possessive now, but back then vos/vous were just alternative spellings. And in Old/Middle French subjects were regularly omitted so it would have had an implied subject: "a vo[u]s [je] me lie".
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Thanks very much, Pansy. Do you know of any other instances of this motto? I couldn't find anything online.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>Other instances of Richard's use of it? I don't know any.
>
>But if you Google "a vous me lie", you'll find some examples of the phrase inscribed on jewellery.
>
>
>
>
>

I have come in on the end of this thread, which I find very interesting. Does anyone know when Richard is believed to have written in his Bible? Maybe this has been said already?

Sandra


From: Arthurian
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 8:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


While I am sure 'Mottoes' are likely to be correct [especially at the top of the tree] Spelling in 'General' had Not standardised by Richard's day as many will know.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

Another fascinating Ricardian mystery! My interest in him never ceases. Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder why he had so many mottos..... Maybe I am not phrasing this right but too many mottos makes them redundant , doesn't it? Was Richard trying to come up with the "perfect" motto and the rest of them were the part of the process?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 10, 2013, at 9:53 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
> >
> > > If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> > > Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
> > > little love-hearts.
> >
> > > I think writing it in the Bible implies something more serious than that;
> > > don't you?
> >
> > Depends how distracted/absent-minded he was. Carol's seen it - does it look
> > like something he wrote out with formal care and attention, or is it more
> > scribbly than that?
> >
> > > Indeed. Though I wonder if that was one of those things that has a
> > > specific literary context first and then develops into something with a
> > > deeper personal meaning?
> >
> > It occurs in one place written under a drawing of a boar which *may* be
> > Richard's own drawing, so it's possible it's a pun on the Tantony Pig, or
> > runt of the litter.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling little love-hearts. [snip]
>
Carol responds:

If so, the Wycliffe Bible is a rather strange place for a love doodle! Of course, if the girl is Anne and his intent is marriage, that's a bit different than mooning over a mistress he can never marry, which he probably would not do in his treasured Bible. But, then, teenage boys are a strange and unpredictable breed . . . .

Carol

Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 14:41
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

 


"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling little love-hearts. [snip]
>
Carol responds:

If so, the Wycliffe Bible is a rather strange place for a love doodle! Of course, if the girl is Anne and his intent is marriage, that's a bit different than mooning over a mistress he can never marry, which he probably would not do in his treasured Bible. But, then, teenage boys are a strange and unpredictable breed . . . .

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Depends how distracted/absent-minded he was. Carol's seen it - does it look like something he wrote out with formal care and attention, or is it more scribbly than that?

Carol responds:

Hoo. boy. You're asking the wrong person. The photograph is rather grainy, and I think it would take an expert in medieval writing to decipher the motto. For example, "vos" looks to my inexpert eyes like "no9." On the other hand, though I can't find an "R" in the signature, "Gloucestre" is quite legible up to the last two letters (where he may have been running out of ink) and from the "ce" onward, the letters get bigger. I would say that it's not one of his careful signatures, but, then, he probably intended no one else to see it.

If you look at the signatures on this page, I would say it's about halfway between his earliest known signature (1469) and the "Chronique de France" signature (minus the first name)--less messy and unformed than the first but not nearly as neat and formal as the second. I think he was working toward that later signature, but maybe he was caught off guard part way through "Gloucestre," which would explain why it looks larger and more hurried. I feel like I've said too much, though, because there's no way to know what happened, and the signature isn't smeared as it would be if he closed the page without blotting it.

There's no date and no explanation, just the photo, a transcription of the motto, and the fact that it was written in his Wycliffe Bible.

The book isn't very expensive (I think I paid twenty-four dollars for a like-new copy) and it has many valuable documents in translation (for Latin, French, etc.) or the original English presented in chronological order as they relate to Richard's life (as opposed to when they were written)--a very valuable source book that every Ricardian should own. Lots of photos as well, some of them in color.

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.

Carol responds:

Actually, I agree with you. I think a love doodle would be oddly placed in a Bible (but *if* it relates to a girl, it would be a sacred promise). And you're not "poking your nose in." Anyone is welcome to join any thread--the more people join, the livelier and more informative the discussion since each of us contributes a different perspective and different sorts of knowledge. Since my knowledge of French is limited and my medieval French nonexistent, I appreciate your perspective, and your point on "a toi" seems like a good one.

Carol

Thanks Carol. I fear in my day old French was taught better than the current stuff - not that useful on campsites though  I'm afraid. H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:10
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.

Carol responds:

Actually, I agree with you. I think a love doodle would be oddly placed in a Bible (but *if* it relates to a girl, it would be a sacred promise). And you're not "poking your nose in." Anyone is welcome to join any thread--the more people join, the livelier and more informative the discussion since each of us contributes a different perspective and different sorts of knowledge. Since my knowledge of French is limited and my medieval French nonexistent, I appreciate your perspective, and your point on "a toi" seems like a good one.

Carol

Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Sandra


From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? HÂ Sorry to poke my nose in.



.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.
>
>


To me, it actually seems a bit odd to address God (or the word of God) as "vous" in this manner, but I can't rationally explain why it seems so, so I could be totally wrong...

Anyway, "a vous" would certainly make sense if it were a girl - in courtly poetry and love-tokens the lover is generally addressed respectfully as "vous". Like I said in an earlier message, "a vous me lie" itself is a common inscription in love-tokens of the time (Henry IV gave one to Joan of Navarre). Some other examples of "vous" in similar inscriptions would be "vous estes ma ioy moundaine" and indeed "a votre plaisir" in the piece of jewellery that might have belonged to Richard and Anne themselves.

But if it was a girl, then I'm 100% sure it was Anne and that the inscription was referring to marriage - and not some random mistress he was mooning over. ('As God is my witness, I bind myself to you!!! Until further notice, that is. I'm not going to marry you or anything, but I bind myself to you in theory, and I'm going to inscribe that purely theoretical binding thingummy on this Bible of mine to make it seem more real.'?)

Isn't it possible that Richard may have given the Bible to Anne as a pledge or an engagement/wedding gift of some kind? In that context the inscription would make perfect sense...

On the other hand I don't think you'd presume to address God as 'a toi'. And I agree with Carol, why in a bible? I'd have thought Richard would have taken a bible much more seriously than as a a repository for any love-sick meanderings. In fact I don't really have him as a love-sick meanderer, but that's just me. But we shall never know. You're right some poets like Ronsard did use 'vous' to address a 'lover' in poetry 'Quand vous serez bien vieille etc' but that was as an art form, not necessarily a personal form.  Just my opinion H  


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:52
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.
>
>

To me, it actually seems a bit odd to address God (or the word of God) as "vous" in this manner, but I can't rationally explain why it seems so, so I could be totally wrong...

Anyway, "a vous" would certainly make sense if it were a girl - in courtly poetry and love-tokens the lover is generally addressed respectfully as "vous". Like I said in an earlier message, "a vous me lie" itself is a common inscription in love-tokens of the time (Henry IV gave one to Joan of Navarre). Some other examples of "vous" in similar inscriptions would be "vous estes ma ioy moundaine" and indeed "a votre plaisir" in the piece of jewellery that might have belonged to Richard and Anne themselves.

But if it was a girl, then I'm 100% sure it was Anne and that the inscription was referring to marriage - and not some random mistress he was mooning over. ('As God is my witness, I bind myself to you!!! Until further notice, that is. I'm not going to marry you or anything, but I bind myself to you in theory, and I'm going to inscribe that purely theoretical binding thingummy on this Bible of mine to make it seem more real.'?)

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Carol responds:

We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.

I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand I don't think you'd presume to address God as 'a toi'.


Actually, I think you would address God as 'Toi' - much as you'd address Him as 'Thou'.

The only examples that spring to my mind right now *do* address God as 'Toi'. 'A Toi, mon Dieu, mon coeur monte' etc.

>And I agree with Carol, why in a bible? I'd have thought Richard would have taken a bible much more seriously than as a a repository for any love-sick meanderings. In fact I don't really have him as a love-sick meanderer, but that's just me. But we shall never know. You're right some poets like Ronsard did use 'vous' to address a 'lover' in poetry 'Quand vous serez bien vieille etc' but that was as an art form, not necessarily a personal form.  Just my opinion H  
>


Well, I wasn't talking about love-sick meanderings, but love-tokens in general: those were as much an art form as love poetry. And *if* that inscription has anything to do with love at all (which is certainly possible as, like I said before, 'a vous me lie' was a common phrase in love-tokens) then I still don't see it as 'love-sick meanderings' but as some kind of a pledge or oath that has to do with marriage.

Thank you, Carol. It's an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edward's ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? Or even that the marriage was already fact and was very definitely not legitimate? Had he been obliged to give his sworn word to Edward? Might he have given that word because he was so very loyal, and young? It may have preyed upon him ever after, and could no longer be adhered to when Edward died so suddenly. I know this is wild conjecture, but it did strike me as a possibility. And it would have been as heavy and serious enough to maybe belong in his Bible.

This suggestion isn't meant to criticise Richard in any way, because I'm probably incapable of doing that (I've been his staunch supporter since I was 24 and I'm, ahem, long past that now  read grey-haired granny) but his capacity for loyalty was enormous, and if he did find out sooner rather than later that Edward had messed up bigamously with Elizabeth Woodville, I can't think he'd find it easy to live with. He'd stand by Edward, of that I'm sure, but how could he continue to do so when Edward had gone and the Woodvilles began to devour everything? They should have been replete long since!, and counting their blessings. Not in his character, I think, and with Edward no more, had the binding aspect of the promise gone as well? Just how far can anyone be expected to go in the name of loyalty? In this case to remain silent was to give the reins of England to the awful Woodvilles. And in Richard's eyes they had no rights at all because their influence was based solely upon a bigamous marriage. But he could hardly say he'd known all along, so enter Stillington, stage left...

To read all this into a signature in a Bible is daft, I know, but once I started to wonder it was hard to stop. Guesswork can be irresistible.

Sandra



From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto



"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Carol responds:

We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.

I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]

Carol

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Carol. It’s an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edward’s ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? [snip]

Carol responds:

The time frame is completely wrong. Richard was only eleven and a half at the time of Edward's secret "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville, and still not yet twelve when it became public. He evidently didn't know about the previous marriage to Eleanor Butler until Stillington revealed it to him in 1483.

The "three signatures" document with "Loyaulte me lie" is from April 1483 (when he still expected to serve Edward V as Protector); they had not yet arrived in London and were probably still in Stony Stratford.

I don't know whether he used "Loyaultie me lie" on other occasions. Does anyone?

Carol

Yes, he was younger when he learned of the actual marriage, but he could still have learned of the bigamy aspect before 1483, and have been persuaded to swear silence and loyalty by Edward. It might not have been until Edward died and Richard saw the way things were going with the Woodvilles that he decided the vow to Edward no longer applied. I said it was guesswork, and I admit to bad maths, but am not ready to concede annihilation just yet. <g>

Sandra


From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

The time frame is completely wrong. Richard was only eleven and a half at the time of Edward's secret "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville, and still not yet twelve when it became public. He evidently didn't know about the previous marriage to Eleanor Butler until Stillington revealed it to him in 1483.

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, he was younger when he learned of the actual marriage, but he could still have learned of the bigamy aspect before 1483, and have been persuaded to swear silence and loyalty by Edward. It might not have been until Edward died and Richard saw the way things were going with the Woodvilles that he decided the vow to Edward no longer applied. I said it was guesswork, and I admit to bad maths, but am not ready to concede annihilation just yet. <g>

Carol responds:

I don't know. It seems unlikely that Richard would have continued to serve Edward loyally if he suspected that Edward had executed George for that reason, and the Woodvilles would probably have been seeking *his* execution, too, if they suspected that he knew about the precontract (marriage) to Eleanor Butler. Also, Richard shows every sign of having been taken by surprise at that point (the discovery of the plot and the revelation of the precontract occur almost at the same point). From normal plans for the coronation of Edward V to the new plan to crown Richard as king took a total of fifteen days. the break in the pattern begins with the letter to York on June 10, and even then, if I recall correctly, the coronation was only delayed, not cancelled. Stillington's revelation, which must have come soon after that, changed everything.

Carol

Didn't he write it into a book about being the perfect knight? Also, the word "desire" in English has a rather narrow connotation, but the definition in other languages is a lot more general. (As an example, the German word for wanting or desiring in general is "Lust", the English cognate of which pretty much only has just the one basic meaning.) I kind of read it as Richard studying the rules for becoming the parfit gentil knight and writing, "Oh, how I've wanted it!"

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
> >
> >
> > > Hmm, I don't think you can get that from "tant le desieree"; it definitely
> > > has the implied subject "[j'ai] tant le desieree". (Or he/she/they/whoever
> > > have desired etc.)
> >
> > Do you mean it means something like "They have desired [it] so much"?
>
> No, I think "[I have] desired it so much" is most likely - just meant it could also (but less likely in this personal context) be he/she/they/whoever. Sorry I was unclear on that.
>
> >
> > If it only crops up once, perhaps his writing "A vos me ly" was the
> > Mediaeval equivalent of dreaming about a girl and absent-mindedly doodling
> > little love-hearts.
>
> I think writing it in the Bible implies something more serious than that; don't you?
>
> But "Tant le desire[e]" turns up twice, so it must have
> > some personal meaning.
> >
>
> Indeed. Though I wonder if that was one of those things that has a specific literary context first and then develops into something with a deeper personal meaning?
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> Didn't he write it into a book about being the perfect knight? Also, the
> word "desire" in English has a rather narrow connotation, but the
> definition in other languages is a lot more general. (As an example, the
> German word for wanting or desiring in general is "Lust", the English
> cognate of which pretty much only has just the one basic meaning.) I kind
> of read it as Richard studying the rules for becoming the parfit gentil
> knight and writing, "Oh, how I've wanted it!"

Yes, but it also appears under a rather amateurish drawing of a boar,
context unknown. There's a bit of text above but I can't read it except the
words my and of. Not sure if the text above the boar is even in Richard's
hand or someone else's, although "Tant le desire" is unquestionably in his
handwriting.

Have a look and see what you think. It's in the files section - the page
from the catalogue for the RIII exhibion at the National Portrait Gallery.
The boar and motto and unknown text are at top right of the page.

Could "vos" (I can't think of anything it could be other than "vous", in this context) be a plural? "I bind myself to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit". That would explain why the binding to God [singular] would not be "a toi", which is what one would expect. In Middle English, children and God were referred to as "thou", along with, I believe, people you would normally address as "you" but wanted to insult. The corresponding "tu/vous" thing in French works along the same lines. (It's "du/Sie" in German, and the rules are so annoyingly precise and difficult to figure out that Germans are largely giving up and speaking English.)

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.
> >
> >
>
>
> To me, it actually seems a bit odd to address God (or the word of God) as "vous" in this manner, but I can't rationally explain why it seems so, so I could be totally wrong...
>
> Anyway, "a vous" would certainly make sense if it were a girl - in courtly poetry and love-tokens the lover is generally addressed respectfully as "vous". Like I said in an earlier message, "a vous me lie" itself is a common inscription in love-tokens of the time (Henry IV gave one to Joan of Navarre). Some other examples of "vous" in similar inscriptions would be "vous estes ma ioy moundaine" and indeed "a votre plaisir" in the piece of jewellery that might have belonged to Richard and Anne themselves.
>
> But if it was a girl, then I'm 100% sure it was Anne and that the inscription was referring to marriage - and not some random mistress he was mooning over. ('As God is my witness, I bind myself to you!!! Until further notice, that is. I'm not going to marry you or anything, but I bind myself to you in theory, and I'm going to inscribe that purely theoretical binding thingummy on this Bible of mine to make it seem more real.'?)
>

The only thing that works against the theory is that the news of the precontract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler seems to have come out of nowhere with the politicosocial impact of a 20-megaton warhead. Everybody was just tra-la-laing along with plans to crown Edward-the-Never-to-be-Fifth and then one day Bishop Stillington takes a meeting with the country's senior management. Next thing you know Richard is vowing to rule with justice as King.

It really, honestly, truly seems to have come as a huge surprise to everyone in the government. Whatever evidence Stillington presented must have been damn convincing: even the Woodvilles didn't put up too much of a fuss about it, at least not openly.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Carol. It’s an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edward’s ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? Or even that the marriage was already fact and was very definitely not legitimate? Had he been obliged to give his sworn word to Edward? Might he have given that word because he was so very loyal, and young? It may have preyed upon him ever after, and could no longer be adhered to when Edward died so suddenly. I know this is wild conjecture, but it did strike me as a possibility. And it would have been as heavy and serious enough to maybe belong in his Bible.
>
> This suggestion isn’t meant to criticise Richard in any way, because I’m probably incapable of doing that (I’ve been his staunch supporter since I was 24 and I’m, ahem, long past that now â€" read grey-haired granny) but his capacity for loyalty was enormous, and if he did find out sooner rather than later that Edward had messed up bigamously with Elizabeth Woodville, I can’t think he’d find it easy to live with. He’d stand by Edward, of that I’m sure, but how could he continue to do so when Edward had gone and the Woodvilles began to devour everything? They should have been replete long since!, and counting their blessings. Not in his character, I think, and with Edward no more, had the binding aspect of the promise gone as well? Just how far can anyone be expected to go in the name of loyalty? In this case to remain silent was to give the reins of England to the awful Woodvilles. And in Richard’s eyes they had no rights at all because their influence was based solely upon a bigamous marriage. But he could hardly say he’d known all along, so enter Stillington, stage left...
>
> To read all this into a signature in a Bible is daft, I know, but once I started to wonder it was hard to stop. Guesswork can be irresistible.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:17 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
>
> "SandraMachin" wrote:
> >
> > Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.
>
> I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
> If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well...

It...

Uh...

Let's just turn this this way and...

OK, that is IT! We need a high-quality scan of this page, and we need it now!

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > Didn't he write it into a book about being the perfect knight? Also, the
> > word "desire" in English has a rather narrow connotation, but the
> > definition in other languages is a lot more general. (As an example, the
> > German word for wanting or desiring in general is "Lust", the English
> > cognate of which pretty much only has just the one basic meaning.) I kind
> > of read it as Richard studying the rules for becoming the parfit gentil
> > knight and writing, "Oh, how I've wanted it!"
>
> Yes, but it also appears under a rather amateurish drawing of a boar,
> context unknown. There's a bit of text above but I can't read it except the
> words my and of. Not sure if the text above the boar is even in Richard's
> hand or someone else's, although "Tant le desire" is unquestionably in his
> handwriting.
>
> Have a look and see what you think. It's in the files section - the page
> from the catalogue for the RIII exhibion at the National Portrait Gallery.
> The boar and motto and unknown text are at top right of the page.
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> OK, that is IT! We need a high-quality scan of this page, and we need it
> now!

Sadly, the scan is as good as the resolution of the photograph. I wonder
what the National Archives would charge to scan from the original? It has
the same serial number and so is probably from the same page as the falcon
in fetterlock next door (the one labelled "the duk of york"!) so it ought to
say something like "my lord of glocestre" - but the second word doesn't look
like "lord" and there's too much other text there.

*If* the writing above the boar is in Richard's hand, that increases the
likelihood that the boar is his own drawing.

Thank you. And Carol too. OK, I formally concede defeat on this one. Which way is it to the block? Thataway? Ah, they've come for me already...

Sandra


From: mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


The only thing that works against the theory is that the news of the precontract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler seems to have come out of nowhere with the politicosocial impact of a 20-megaton warhead. Everybody was just tra-la-laing along with plans to crown Edward-the-Never-to-be-Fifth and then one day Bishop Stillington takes a meeting with the country's senior management. Next thing you know Richard is vowing to rule with justice as King.

It really, honestly, truly seems to have come as a huge surprise to everyone in the government. Whatever evidence Stillington presented must have been damn convincing: even the Woodvilles didn't put up too much of a fuss about it, at least not openly.

I can follow your path better than I can that of the romantic lover. I have Richard as a serious young man, who wanted to do 'what was right'. He'd ever got this thing about fighting the Turks (and of course Richard Beauchamp had been on a pilgrimage to Constantinople and you can bet the Warwicks talked about that) and about loyalty and duty. Not a man, I would have thought (but of course I never met him) who would commit his self-indulgent thoughts about women to paper - leave that to great nephew Henry. And as for flowery poems - much more Rivers style. H  

 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:03
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


 

Thank you, Carol. It's an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edward's ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? Or even that the marriage was already fact and was very definitely not legitimate? Had he been obliged to give his sworn word to Edward? Might he have given that word because he was so very loyal, and young? It may have preyed upon him ever after, and could no longer be adhered to when Edward died so suddenly. I know this is wild conjecture, but it did
strike me as a possibility. And it would have been as heavy and serious enough to maybe belong in his Bible.

This suggestion isn't meant to criticise Richard in any way, because I'm probably incapable of doing that (I've been his staunch supporter since I was 24 and I'm, ahem, long past that now  read grey-haired granny) but his capacity for loyalty was enormous, and if he did find out sooner rather than later that Edward had messed up bigamously with Elizabeth Woodville, I can't think he'd find it easy to live with. He'd stand by Edward, of that I'm sure, but how could he continue to do so when Edward had gone and the Woodvilles began to devour everything? They should have been replete long since!, and counting their blessings. Not in his character, I think, and with Edward no more, had the binding aspect of the promise gone as well? Just how far can anyone be expected to go in the name of loyalty? In this case to remain silent was to give the reins of England to the awful Woodvilles. And in Richard's eyes they had no rights at all because
their influence was based solely upon a bigamous marriage. But he could hardly say he'd known all along, so enter Stillington, stage left...

To read all this into a signature in a Bible is daft, I know, but once I started to wonder it was hard to stop. Guesswork can be irresistible.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:17 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Carol responds:

We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.

I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]

Carol

Yes I took it both as a plural and an unfamiliar. H



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:25
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

 

Could "vos" (I can't think of anything it could be other than "vous", in this context) be a plural? "I bind myself to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit". That would explain why the binding to God [singular] would not be "a toi", which is what one would expect. In Middle English, children and God were referred to as "thou", along with, I believe, people you would normally address as "you" but wanted to insult. The corresponding "tu/vous" thing in French works along the same lines. (It's "du/Sie" in German, and the rules are so annoyingly precise and difficult to figure out that Germans are largely giving up and speaking English.)

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't it make more sense it this context if he is binding himself to God? If it was a girl or a friend he knew wouldn't it be 'a toi'? H  Sorry to poke my nose in.
> >
> >
>
>
> To me, it actually seems a bit odd to address God (or the word of God) as "vous" in this manner, but I can't rationally explain why it seems so, so I could be totally wrong...
>
> Anyway, "a vous" would certainly make sense if it were a girl - in courtly poetry and love-tokens the lover is generally addressed respectfully as "vous". Like I said in an earlier message, "a vous me lie" itself is a common inscription in love-tokens of the time (Henry IV gave one to Joan of Navarre). Some other examples of "vous" in similar inscriptions would be "vous estes ma ioy moundaine" and indeed "a votre plaisir" in the piece of jewellery that might have belonged to Richard and Anne themselves.
>
> But if it was a girl, then I'm 100% sure it was Anne and that the inscription was referring to marriage - and not some random mistress he was mooning over. ('As God is my witness, I bind myself to you!!! Until further notice, that is. I'm not going to marry you or anything, but I bind myself to you in theory, and I'm going to inscribe that purely theoretical binding thingummy on this Bible of mine to make it seem more real.'?)
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I can follow your path better than I can that of the romantic lover. I
> have Richard as a serious young man, who wanted to do 'what was right'.

They're not mutually exclusive, though. My lovely friend John, who died two
years ago today, not only looked so like Richard that it was freakish but
had the same sort of courage, social conscience and dedication. He had a
brilliant mind, had had scientific papers published, he was a local town
councillor and very active in local politics generally, he was a very deep
and serious political thinker who devoted his life to helping the
disadvantaged and would put himself in physical danger to do so, even when
he was dying of cancer - and he was also a great romantic with a lifelong,
bouncy-teenage-boy dedication to his adored wife.

Mensa members tend to be very highly sexed!

And, as the youngest child, and watching his beloved brother, Edward, wench his way through life, I would think that he would commit little to paper, and be quite an interior thinker.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:55 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I can follow your path better than I can that of the romantic lover. I have Richard as a serious young man, who wanted to do 'what was right'. He'd ever got this thing about fighting the Turks (and of course Richard Beauchamp had been on a pilgrimage to Constantinople and you can bet the Warwicks talked about that) and about loyalty and duty. Not a man, I would have thought (but of course I never met him) who would commit his self-indulgent thoughts about women to paper - leave that to great nephew Henry. And as for flowery poems - much more Rivers style. H



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:03
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto




Thank you, Carol. Itýs an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edwardýs ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? Or even that the marriage was already fact and was very definitely not legitimate? Had he been obliged to give his sworn word to Edward? Might he have given that word because he was so very loyal, and young? It may have preyed upon him ever after, and could no longer be adhered to when Edward died so suddenly. I know this is wild conjecture, but it did
strike me as a possibility. And it would have been as heavy and serious enough to maybe belong in his Bible.

This suggestion isnýt meant to criticise Richard in any way, because Iým probably incapable of doing that (Iýve been his staunch supporter since I was 24 and Iým, ahem, long past that now ý read grey-haired granny) but his capacity for loyalty was enormous, and if he did find out sooner rather than later that Edward had messed up bigamously with Elizabeth Woodville, I canýt think heýd find it easy to live with. Heýd stand by Edward, of that Iým sure, but how could he continue to do so when Edward had gone and the Woodvilles began to devour everything? They should have been replete long since!, and counting their blessings. Not in his character, I think, and with Edward no more, had the binding aspect of the promise gone as well? Just how far can anyone be expected to go in the name of loyalty? In this case to remain silent was to give the reins of England to the awful Woodvilles. And in Richardýs eyes they had no rights at all because
their influence was based solely upon a bigamous marriage. But he could hardly say heýd known all along, so enter Stillington, stage left...

To read all this into a signature in a Bible is daft, I know, but once I started to wonder it was hard to stop. Guesswork can be irresistible.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:17 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Carol responds:

We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.

I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]

Carol

I like that - an interior thinker - yes that's just how I've got him



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:57
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

And, as the youngest child, and watching his beloved brother, Edward, wench his way through life, I would think that he would commit little to paper, and be quite an interior thinker.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:55 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I can follow your path better than I can that of the romantic lover. I have Richard as a serious young man, who wanted to do 'what was right'. He'd ever got this thing about fighting the Turks (and of course Richard Beauchamp had been on a pilgrimage to Constantinople and you can bet the Warwicks talked about that) and about loyalty and duty. Not a man, I would have thought (but of course I never met him) who would commit his self-indulgent thoughts about women to paper - leave that to great nephew Henry. And as for flowery poems - much more Rivers style. H



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:03
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto




Thank you, Carol. It's an important point to me because we do not know what prompted him to express himself in such a way. It might not have been anything to do with Anne Neville or any other lady. What if he had been just out of his teens and in his very early twenties, and was writing for a very different reason indeed. I know this is tentative, and probably idiotically out of order, especially given future events (in which I present my head for the block), but might, might, it have anything to do with somehow learning about his brother Edward's ill-judged intention to make a bigamous marriage? Or even that the marriage was already fact and was very definitely not legitimate? Had he been obliged to give his sworn word to Edward? Might he have given that word because he was so very loyal, and young? It may have preyed upon him ever after, and could no longer be adhered to when Edward died so suddenly. I know this is wild conjecture, but it did
strike me as a possibility. And it would have been as heavy and serious enough to maybe belong in his Bible.

This suggestion isn't meant to criticise Richard in any way, because I'm probably incapable of doing that (I've been his staunch supporter since I was 24 and I'm, ahem, long past that now  read grey-haired granny) but his capacity for loyalty was enormous, and if he did find out sooner rather than later that Edward had messed up bigamously with Elizabeth Woodville, I can't think he'd find it easy to live with. He'd stand by Edward, of that I'm sure, but how could he continue to do so when Edward had gone and the Woodvilles began to devour everything? They should have been replete long since!, and counting their blessings. Not in his character, I think, and with Edward no more, had the binding aspect of the promise gone as well? Just how far can anyone be expected to go in the name of loyalty? In this case to remain silent was to give the reins of England to the awful Woodvilles. And in Richard's eyes they had no rights at all because
their influence was based solely upon a bigamous marriage. But he could hardly say he'd known all along, so enter Stillington, stage left...

To read all this into a signature in a Bible is daft, I know, but once I started to wonder it was hard to stop. Guesswork can be irresistible.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:17 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Erm (raises timid hand) does anyone know when in his teens Richard might have written this? I mean, there's a difference between thirteen and nineteen, especially in his life. Or has it been said so many times already that no one can quite believe I'm asking?

Carol responds:

We don't know. It looks slightly more mature than the signature on the letter written when he was sixteen, but that was written in haste and was an urgent plea for a follower to lend him money, so the circumstances have to be taken into account.

I checked the index to the Ricardian for articles on Richard's mottoes but found nothing, but several are devoted to his Wycliffe Bible and might mention this motto. http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
If anyone owns the full set and has time to check, I'd appreciate it, but I'll understand if you silently decline. {Smile]

Carol













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

Yahoo! Groups Links

McJohn wrote:
>
> The only thing that works against the theory is that the news of the precontract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler seems to have come out of nowhere with the politicosocial impact of a 20-megaton warhead. Everybody was just tra-la-laing along with plans to crown Edward-the-Never-to-be-Fifth and then one day Bishop Stillington takes a meeting with the country's senior management. Next thing you know Richard is vowing to rule with justice as King.
>
> It really, honestly, truly seems to have come as a huge surprise to everyone in the government. Whatever evidence Stillington presented must have been damn convincing: even the Woodvilles didn't put up too much of a fuss about it, at least not openly.

Carol responds:

I agree completely. Certainly, it was a surprise to Richard, and apparently, his council (with the exception of Hastings and his fellow conspirators, who either already knew about it and said nothing or didn't want to believe it) and the three estates found Stillington's evidence thoroughly convincing.

In theory, EW could have come out of sanctuary and appealed to, say, Chancellor Russell or the Archbishop of Canterbury to defend the validity of her marriage and the legitimacy of her children. She might even have been allowed to present her case to Parliament via a lawyer. Why didn't she? Probably because she knew she didn't have a case.

Later, Henry Tudor arrested Stillington and then pardoned him rather than allowing Parliament to question him. And then, of course, he had Titulus Regius removed from the rolls of Parliament and all copies (but one!) burned unread. Why not just prove that the charges were spurious and have it repealed? Again, probably because many of those same members of Parliament had already heard the arguments and been convinced by them.

Carol

It seems to me that if there had been a case against it, he would have allowed that case to be made.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>
> It really, honestly, truly seems to have come as a huge surprise to everyone in the government. Whatever evidence Stillington presented must have been damn convincing: even the Woodvilles didn't put up too much of a fuss about it, at least not openly.
>


That's the thing, isn't it - and so very frustrating that there must have been more to it than we know now.

Most people just seem to assume that Richard pulled the whole story out of thin air, forged some sketchy evidence to back it up, bribed a bishop to nod along as a puppet for moral support, and everyone else was unconvinced but still went along with the farce because... why exactly? Because they were so stupid or spineless or so scared of scary Richard?

And if they didn't believe it why didn't they strongly object? The remaining powers that be and Parliament had as good as killed Warwick in the 1470/71 re-adeption when they disagreed with him over a much more minor matter (foreign trade). This is surely why it can't have been a fabrication. Though I do believe in the pre-contract, I truly don't believe Richard knew about it. For a start, he'd have been much better prepared before leaving Yorkshire. I think it came out of the blue to him, which is why things took such strange turns (Hastings for a start). And headless chicken syndrome continued.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:21
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

 

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>
> It really, honestly, truly seems to have come as a huge surprise to everyone in the government. Whatever evidence Stillington presented must have been damn convincing: even the Woodvilles didn't put up too much of a fuss about it, at least not openly.
>

That's the thing, isn't it - and so very frustrating that there must have been more to it than we know now.

Most people just seem to assume that Richard pulled the whole story out of thin air, forged some sketchy evidence to back it up, bribed a bishop to nod along as a puppet for moral support, and everyone else was unconvinced but still went along with the farce because... why exactly? Because they were so stupid or spineless or so scared of scary Richard?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I like that - an interior thinker - yes that's just how I've got him

He would have to be at least to some extent, since all his adult life he was
concealing his wiggly back from the Mediaeval equivalent of red-top
journalism.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


> I think it came out of the blue to him, which is why things took such
> strange turns (Hastings for a start). And headless chicken syndrome
> continued.

Yes, and it must have been very disturbing for Richard, and for anybody who
loved and trusted Edward and didn't already know about the pre-contract.
All the time, he had been lying, he had committed bigamy and tried to foist
the children of a dud marriage onto the throne, and he had killed George to
keep his secret - it was probably as disturbing for Richard's sense of
family as it is when people find out that their father isn't their father.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
>
> > I can follow your path better than I can that of the romantic lover. I
> > have Richard as a serious young man, who wanted to do 'what was right'.
>
> They're not mutually exclusive, though. My lovely friend John, who died two
> years ago today, not only looked so like Richard that it was freakish but
> had the same sort of courage, social conscience and dedication. He had a
> brilliant mind, had had scientific papers published, he was a local town
> councillor and very active in local politics generally, he was a very deep
> and serious political thinker who devoted his life to helping the
> disadvantaged and would put himself in physical danger to do so, even when
> he was dying of cancer - and he was also a great romantic with a lifelong,
> bouncy-teenage-boy dedication to his adored wife.
>
> Mensa members tend to be very highly sexed!
>

No experience of Mensa members here, but otherwise, I'd have to agree. And people are romantic in so many different ways: some spend their lives chasing after fleeting romantic illusions, some are imprudent and impractical and adamant about following their heart no matter where it takes them, but some are practical and down-to-earth and quiet about their feelings - and still romantic.

Richard obviously had a big thing for chivalry and an idealistic streak about him; and as for his strong sense of duty and loyalty, those are 'romantic' concepts in themselves. I can't believe that I (as one of the least romantic people in the world) find myself arguing the case for The Romantic Richard, but I don't understand what's so implausible about him possibly having real romantic feelings for his wife... especially since sometimes it happens that two people *are* truly well matched and devotion comes naturally - even to people who aren't romantic in their general outlook on life.

Either way, I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that the inscription in the Bible might refer to Richard's marriage. Of course it might be something else, but I do think the fact that it was such a common phrase in love-tokens of the time implies that it's more likely to refer to love/marriage than anything else. And I think both the wording and the fact that it's inscribed on a Bible implies a seriousness of purpose that goes quite well with a troth of marriage. That wouldn't even necessarily mean that the writer is a romantic person thinking romantic thoughts about his beloved: just that he's going to get married. Which, as we know, he did.

Maybe the anger is the reason why Richard let the parliament put in the bit about misgovernment in the TR. I have always wondered why he would agree to " blacken" Ed4's name if he has been the loyal brother and lieutenant. I think now it makes sense to me. It was that anger and disbelief pouring through.

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
> > I think it came out of the blue to him, which is why things took such
> > strange turns (Hastings for a start). And headless chicken syndrome
> > continued.
>
> Yes, and it must have been very disturbing for Richard, and for anybody who
> loved and trusted Edward and didn't already know about the pre-contract.
> All the time, he had been lying, he had committed bigamy and tried to foist
> the children of a dud marriage onto the throne, and he had killed George to
> keep his secret - it was probably as disturbing for Richard's sense of
> family as it is when people find out that their father isn't their father.
>
>

Interesting theory.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe the anger is the reason why Richard let the parliament put in the bit about misgovernment in the TR. I have always wondered why he would agree to " blacken" Ed4's name if he has been the loyal brother and lieutenant. I think now it makes sense to me. It was that anger and disbelief pouring through.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
> >
> > > I think it came out of the blue to him, which is why things took such
> > > strange turns (Hastings for a start). And headless chicken syndrome
> > > continued.
> >
> > Yes, and it must have been very disturbing for Richard, and for anybody who
> > loved and trusted Edward and didn't already know about the pre-contract.
> > All the time, he had been lying, he had committed bigamy and tried to foist
> > the children of a dud marriage onto the throne, and he had killed George to
> > keep his secret - it was probably as disturbing for Richard's sense of
> > family as it is when people find out that their father isn't their father.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

pansydobersby wrote:

> Most people just seem to assume that Richard pulled the whole story out of thin air, forged some sketchy evidence to back it up, bribed a bishop to nod along as a puppet for moral support, and everyone else was unconvinced but still went along with the farce because... why exactly? Because they were so stupid or spineless or so scared of scary Richard?

Carol responds:

Or because they really wanted Richard as king because of his impeccable bloodline, his maturity, his reputation for justice and integrity, and his skill as a soldier and administrator. The three estates, who formulated the petition later unanimously passed as Titulus Regius by Parliament, took care to include all his other qualifications (and to exclude the Earl of Warwick as well as Edward's sons). It seems clear that they didn't want a child king, especially one whose legitimacy was in question, and they were probably trying to avert civil war by having a highly qualified adult king in his place. Which is not to say that they didn't believe Stillington's evidence regarding the precontract, but some of them, at least, must have regarded it as a godsend. Richard himself may have found it a mixed blessing. His reluctance to accept the crown may have been unfeigned, but at that point, neither he nor the three estates had any choice.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip]
> All the time, he had been lying, he had committed bigamy and tried to foist the children of a dud marriage onto the throne, and he had killed George to keep his secret [snip]

Carol responds:

While it's highly probable that the marriage of Eleanor Butler was real and that Stillington was not lying (which would mean that Edward was), we don't know it for a fact. We have evidence (Titulus Regius and the behavior of a number of persons) and we have logic, but we do not have proof. The assumption that Edward executed George because George knew about the precontract is even less of a fact. It makes sense to us, and it may well be true, but it is not a proven fact. Please, let's preserve the crucial distinction between what we think and what we know.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto

> While it's highly probable that the marriage of Eleanor Butler was real
> and that Stillington was not lying (which would mean that Edward was), we
> don't know it for a fact. We have evidence (Titulus Regius and the
> behavior of a number of persons) and we have logic, but we do not have
> proof. The assumption that Edward executed George because George knew
> about the precontract is even less of a fact. It makes sense to us, and it
> may well be true, but it is not a proven fact. Please, let's preserve the
> crucial distinction between what we think and what we know.

Yes. But when we think a thing, we also need to think about what the
consequences of the thing would be, including the psychological
consequences, otherwise what's the point?

Yes I can go with what you both say. Edward had posthumously betrayed Richard, and we know how he felt about betrayal. 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:05
Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto


 

Maybe the anger is the reason why Richard let the parliament put in the bit about misgovernment in the TR. I have always wondered why he would agree to " blacken" Ed4's name if he has been the loyal brother and lieutenant. I think now it makes sense to me. It was that anger and disbelief pouring through.

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Another Ricardian motto
>
> > I think it came out of the blue to him, which is why things took such
> > strange turns (Hastings for a start). And headless chicken syndrome
> > continued.
>
> Yes, and it must have been very disturbing for Richard, and for anybody who
> loved and trusted Edward and didn't already know about the pre-contract.
> All the time, he had been lying, he had committed bigamy and tried to foist
> the children of a dud marriage onto the throne, and he had killed George to
> keep his secret - it was probably as disturbing for Richard's sense of
> family as it is when people find out that their father isn't their father.
>
>