Hi all
Hi all
2003-10-11 07:34:01
Loha
I'm new to the group but I got hooked on Richard when I was a little
girl and read Tey's book about him. Have been reading about him ever
since and being in Leeds I'm only a stone's throw from Middleham. :-)
While I'm saying hello I'll offer the opportunity to anyone on this
group that wants to get involved with something I'm doing on another
list. I'm involved with bookcrossing (www.bookcrossing.com) and I
just set up a bookring for a journal to collect suggestions and
recommends for history fact books. The idea is to get a group of 15-
20 people (hopefully half in Europe, half anywhere else in the
world) and post the journal round the group twice (first time for
each member to make suggestions and requests and the second time to
read the replies). I'd love somebody with good Richard knowledge to
be part of it, so I can build my collection up but also to see what
comments come back from the non-UK residents :-)
If anyone is interested in the project please just drop me a line.
Nia
I'm new to the group but I got hooked on Richard when I was a little
girl and read Tey's book about him. Have been reading about him ever
since and being in Leeds I'm only a stone's throw from Middleham. :-)
While I'm saying hello I'll offer the opportunity to anyone on this
group that wants to get involved with something I'm doing on another
list. I'm involved with bookcrossing (www.bookcrossing.com) and I
just set up a bookring for a journal to collect suggestions and
recommends for history fact books. The idea is to get a group of 15-
20 people (hopefully half in Europe, half anywhere else in the
world) and post the journal round the group twice (first time for
each member to make suggestions and requests and the second time to
read the replies). I'd love somebody with good Richard knowledge to
be part of it, so I can build my collection up but also to see what
comments come back from the non-UK residents :-)
If anyone is interested in the project please just drop me a line.
Nia
Hi all
2012-04-28 14:26:45
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Re: Hi all
2012-04-28 21:21:02
Hi Rossi, and welcome from me. Maybe one day you'll be able to join one of those Ricardian tours organised by the American branch which visit the places in Britain you want to see ... ?
For my part I must say I'm sorry to hear that you believe Richard III was responsible for the deaths of his nephews, especially as there is no evidence that they even died during his reign. I'd like to think you might be persuaded to keep an open mind on the subject, as I and many others do - especially as, given the state of our current knowledge, the truth of the matter is simply not known. Which can equally be said about the bones in the urn at Westminster Abbey ... and 'Perkin Warbeck' ... and a good deal more that happened 500 years ago ...
If you check the writings of Niclas von Popplau, Jean Molinet, the Dutch 'Divisie Chronicle', and Henry VII's biographer Bernard Andre (all within about 30 years of Richard's death) - and even, believe it or not, Thomas More - you'll find they record that doubts existed whether they were killed. To quote Polydore Vergil, in the published version of his 'History' (published around 1534 but written earlier), he said he had encountered a general report and belief "that the sons of Edward IV were still alive, having been conveyed secretly away and obscurely concealed in some distant region." In later years there were similar comments by Sir George Buck and Francis Bacon. These people's doubts are seldom reported in traditional history books, and of course they don't prove anything, but neither does the rumour and gossip that claimed the boys were murdered. It's a mystery, and it hasn't been solved yet!
Best wishes, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Roslyn Minenko
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:26 PM
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
For my part I must say I'm sorry to hear that you believe Richard III was responsible for the deaths of his nephews, especially as there is no evidence that they even died during his reign. I'd like to think you might be persuaded to keep an open mind on the subject, as I and many others do - especially as, given the state of our current knowledge, the truth of the matter is simply not known. Which can equally be said about the bones in the urn at Westminster Abbey ... and 'Perkin Warbeck' ... and a good deal more that happened 500 years ago ...
If you check the writings of Niclas von Popplau, Jean Molinet, the Dutch 'Divisie Chronicle', and Henry VII's biographer Bernard Andre (all within about 30 years of Richard's death) - and even, believe it or not, Thomas More - you'll find they record that doubts existed whether they were killed. To quote Polydore Vergil, in the published version of his 'History' (published around 1534 but written earlier), he said he had encountered a general report and belief "that the sons of Edward IV were still alive, having been conveyed secretly away and obscurely concealed in some distant region." In later years there were similar comments by Sir George Buck and Francis Bacon. These people's doubts are seldom reported in traditional history books, and of course they don't prove anything, but neither does the rumour and gossip that claimed the boys were murdered. It's a mystery, and it hasn't been solved yet!
Best wishes, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Roslyn Minenko
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:26 PM
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Re: Hi all
2012-04-29 03:15:05
Hi Rossi
You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
after all. You'll be in good company here.
As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
possible ancestors.
Karen
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
To: <>
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
after all. You'll be in good company here.
As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
possible ancestors.
Karen
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
To: <>
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Re: Hi all
2012-04-29 17:30:43
Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him ý he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <>
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him ý he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <>
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
Re: Hi all
2012-04-30 01:39:10
Lisa, I whole heartily concur with your assessment. As far as I'm
concerned, Carson's book is a must read for all Ricardians. What I love
about the book is that Carson doesn't cherry pick. She systematically
shows why certain positions are not sustainable and why certain things
need more examination.
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned
King by
> Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
> closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own
mind -
> she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
>
> I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA
testing...
> maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a
line!
>
> Lisa
>
> On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi Rossi
> >
> > You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We
find much
> > to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by
the
> > history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of
his time,
> > after all. You'll be in good company here.
> >
> > As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on
the
> > remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower,
even
> > possible ancestors.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Roslyn Minenko rossi.minenko@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> > To:
> > Subject: Hi all
> >
> > I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even
though I
> > live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's
history
> > is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked
up my
> > first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped
reading
> > novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a
geek).
> > My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places
I've read
> > so much about.
> >
> > I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until
then,
> > I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was
googling to
> > see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a
link on
> > two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV -
and
> > that's how I discovered this group.
> >
> > As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know
that he
> > would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full
power -
> > I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for
the
> > deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his
own hand
> > but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to
lightly.
> > I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> > Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned
by some
> > for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI ,
or what
> > Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death
of the
> > Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton'
(mentally
> > challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will
always be a
> > rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to
consolidate and
> > secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because
Edward V
> > and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know
this even
> > if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
> >
> > Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the
modern
> > world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As
the
> > mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of
my
> > sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
matter
> > of course.
> >
> > I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at
least
> > this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard
III
> > forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the
whole
> > history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position,
what
> > would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
> >
> > Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
legitimate,
> > and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne
Neville, how
> > she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> > Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm
also
> > interested in archaeology.
> >
> > Rossi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
> Restoration Portfolio Photographs
>
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392\
349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
>
>
>
>
concerned, Carson's book is a must read for all Ricardians. What I love
about the book is that Carson doesn't cherry pick. She systematically
shows why certain positions are not sustainable and why certain things
need more examination.
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned
King by
> Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
> closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own
mind -
> she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
>
> I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA
testing...
> maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a
line!
>
> Lisa
>
> On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark Ragged_staff@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi Rossi
> >
> > You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We
find much
> > to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by
the
> > history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of
his time,
> > after all. You'll be in good company here.
> >
> > As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on
the
> > remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower,
even
> > possible ancestors.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Roslyn Minenko rossi.minenko@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> > To:
> > Subject: Hi all
> >
> > I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even
though I
> > live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's
history
> > is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked
up my
> > first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped
reading
> > novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a
geek).
> > My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places
I've read
> > so much about.
> >
> > I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until
then,
> > I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was
googling to
> > see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a
link on
> > two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV -
and
> > that's how I discovered this group.
> >
> > As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know
that he
> > would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full
power -
> > I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for
the
> > deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his
own hand
> > but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to
lightly.
> > I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> > Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned
by some
> > for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI ,
or what
> > Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death
of the
> > Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton'
(mentally
> > challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will
always be a
> > rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to
consolidate and
> > secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because
Edward V
> > and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know
this even
> > if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
> >
> > Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the
modern
> > world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As
the
> > mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of
my
> > sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
matter
> > of course.
> >
> > I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at
least
> > this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard
III
> > forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the
whole
> > history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position,
what
> > would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
> >
> > Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
legitimate,
> > and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne
Neville, how
> > she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> > Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm
also
> > interested in archaeology.
> >
> > Rossi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
> Restoration Portfolio Photographs
>
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392\
349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
>
>
>
>
Re: Hi all
2012-04-30 09:20:58
Thanks, Lisa, and Joan too, for your kind recommendation of my book.
However, to be scrupulously honest, I have to admit that I do engage in a
fair amount of speculation and what one might call questioning of orthodoxy.
I think this is unavoidable in dealing with a period five centuries ago for
which records are scant and reporting is unreliable. What is important, I
think, is to make it evident when I'm doing so. For example, the whole
opening section where I cite Richard Collins's theory that Edward IV might
have been poisoned. It's a reasonable point to investigate, especially since
near-contemporary sources also questioned whether he died from natural
causes, but it is certainly speculative, and at the same time it's an object
lesson in how little we really know.
I feel there's a parallel here with the question of whether Edward was
legitimate, which interests Rossi. Once again we have an edifice of
speculation built upon a few debatable facts and a lot of rumour - but isn't
it interesting how one can identify a set of clues and construct a
conclusion from them? What we must always beware, I think, is something like
the case of Henry Wyatt, where a set of stories has been accepted and cited
by authorities as eminent as the Dictionary of National Biography, but which
virtually disintegrate when you drill down to what hard facts are actually
known.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hi all
Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find
> much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <>
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've
> read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own
> hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of
> the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate
> and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
> matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
> legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville,
> how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
However, to be scrupulously honest, I have to admit that I do engage in a
fair amount of speculation and what one might call questioning of orthodoxy.
I think this is unavoidable in dealing with a period five centuries ago for
which records are scant and reporting is unreliable. What is important, I
think, is to make it evident when I'm doing so. For example, the whole
opening section where I cite Richard Collins's theory that Edward IV might
have been poisoned. It's a reasonable point to investigate, especially since
near-contemporary sources also questioned whether he died from natural
causes, but it is certainly speculative, and at the same time it's an object
lesson in how little we really know.
I feel there's a parallel here with the question of whether Edward was
legitimate, which interests Rossi. Once again we have an edifice of
speculation built upon a few debatable facts and a lot of rumour - but isn't
it interesting how one can identify a set of clues and construct a
conclusion from them? What we must always beware, I think, is something like
the case of Henry Wyatt, where a set of stories has been accepted and cited
by authorities as eminent as the Dictionary of National Biography, but which
virtually disintegrate when you drill down to what hard facts are actually
known.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hi all
Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find
> much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <>
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've
> read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own
> hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of
> the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate
> and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
> matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
> legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville,
> how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Hi all
2012-04-30 09:58:55
The 'Edward IV was illegitimate' notion, recently dredged up and given a
whiff of respectability, and quoted ad nauseam (the number of times I come
across it in various facebook forums is astonishing) is an example of how
something dreamed up by a man's enemies 500 years ago can be accepted
without question by a modern 'personality' prepared to go to any lengths,
and twist any mundane fact (and a good few factoids) into a shape that
'proves' it. Margaret of Anjou suffers the same. Interestingly, both pieces
of malice were perpetrated by the same person (and the historical figure who
most interests me), the earl of Warwick. I'm sure he'd be delighted to find
out that both his bits of libellous mischief are, without any real evidence
whatsoever, still part of the many people's 'knowledge' of history.
Cherrypicking is the go-to approach to history for far too many people.
Everything the duke of York did with regard to his son, Edward, makes a
nonsense of the whole concept.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:20:52 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hi all
Thanks, Lisa, and Joan too, for your kind recommendation of my book.
However, to be scrupulously honest, I have to admit that I do engage in a
fair amount of speculation and what one might call questioning of orthodoxy.
I think this is unavoidable in dealing with a period five centuries ago for
which records are scant and reporting is unreliable. What is important, I
think, is to make it evident when I'm doing so. For example, the whole
opening section where I cite Richard Collins's theory that Edward IV might
have been poisoned. It's a reasonable point to investigate, especially since
near-contemporary sources also questioned whether he died from natural
causes, but it is certainly speculative, and at the same time it's an object
lesson in how little we really know.
I feel there's a parallel here with the question of whether Edward was
legitimate, which interests Rossi. Once again we have an edifice of
speculation built upon a few debatable facts and a lot of rumour - but isn't
it interesting how one can identify a set of clues and construct a
conclusion from them? What we must always beware, I think, is something like
the case of Henry Wyatt, where a set of stories has been accepted and cited
by authorities as eminent as the Dictionary of National Biography, but which
virtually disintegrate when you drill down to what hard facts are actually
known.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...
<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com> >
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hi all
Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find
> much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...
<mailto:rossi.minenko%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've
> read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own
> hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of
> the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate
> and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
> matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
> legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville,
> how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.13923499
90&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
whiff of respectability, and quoted ad nauseam (the number of times I come
across it in various facebook forums is astonishing) is an example of how
something dreamed up by a man's enemies 500 years ago can be accepted
without question by a modern 'personality' prepared to go to any lengths,
and twist any mundane fact (and a good few factoids) into a shape that
'proves' it. Margaret of Anjou suffers the same. Interestingly, both pieces
of malice were perpetrated by the same person (and the historical figure who
most interests me), the earl of Warwick. I'm sure he'd be delighted to find
out that both his bits of libellous mischief are, without any real evidence
whatsoever, still part of the many people's 'knowledge' of history.
Cherrypicking is the go-to approach to history for far too many people.
Everything the duke of York did with regard to his son, Edward, makes a
nonsense of the whole concept.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:20:52 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hi all
Thanks, Lisa, and Joan too, for your kind recommendation of my book.
However, to be scrupulously honest, I have to admit that I do engage in a
fair amount of speculation and what one might call questioning of orthodoxy.
I think this is unavoidable in dealing with a period five centuries ago for
which records are scant and reporting is unreliable. What is important, I
think, is to make it evident when I'm doing so. For example, the whole
opening section where I cite Richard Collins's theory that Edward IV might
have been poisoned. It's a reasonable point to investigate, especially since
near-contemporary sources also questioned whether he died from natural
causes, but it is certainly speculative, and at the same time it's an object
lesson in how little we really know.
I feel there's a parallel here with the question of whether Edward was
legitimate, which interests Rossi. Once again we have an edifice of
speculation built upon a few debatable facts and a lot of rumour - but isn't
it interesting how one can identify a set of clues and construct a
conclusion from them? What we must always beware, I think, is something like
the case of Henry Wyatt, where a set of stories has been accepted and cited
by authorities as eminent as the Dictionary of National Biography, but which
virtually disintegrate when you drill down to what hard facts are actually
known.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...
<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com> >
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hi all
Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
Lisa
On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Rossi
>
> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find
> much
> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>
> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
> possible ancestors.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...
<mailto:rossi.minenko%40gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Hi all
>
> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've
> read
> so much about.
>
> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
> that's how I discovered this group.
>
> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own
> hand
> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of
> the
> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate
> and
> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>
> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a
> matter
> of course.
>
> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>
> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being
> legitimate,
> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville,
> how
> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
> interested in archaeology.
>
> Rossi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.13923499
90&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Hi all
2012-04-30 10:47:35
Only a few years ago I was allowed into the Society of Antiquaries library where they have a lock of Edward IV hair. I was given the box and left alone. Naturally I opened it and held it.
So for a while my fingers had Yorkist DNA on them! [:-)]
Nowadays I get very angry when I watch 'experts' on television fingering without gloves documents from Victorian times as well as earlier times!
Paul
On 29 Apr 2012, at 17:30, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
> Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
> closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
> she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
>
> I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
> maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
>
> Lisa
>
> On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi Rossi
>>
>> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
>> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
>> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
>> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>>
>> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
>> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
>> possible ancestors.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Hi all
>>
>> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
>> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
>> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
>> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
>> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
>> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
>> so much about.
>>
>> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
>> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
>> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
>> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
>> that's how I discovered this group.
>>
>> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
>> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
>> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
>> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
>> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
>> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
>> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
>> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
>> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
>> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
>> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
>> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
>> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
>> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
>> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>>
>> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
>> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
>> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
>> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
>> of course.
>>
>> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
>> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
>> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
>> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
>> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>>
>> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
>> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
>> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
>> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
>> interested in archaeology.
>>
>> Rossi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
> Restoration Portfolio Photographs
> Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
So for a while my fingers had Yorkist DNA on them! [:-)]
Nowadays I get very angry when I watch 'experts' on television fingering without gloves documents from Victorian times as well as earlier times!
Paul
On 29 Apr 2012, at 17:30, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> Hi Rossi - the best factual book to read on Richard is The Maligned King by
> Annette Carson! Its almost a timeline backed with supporting documents
> closest to the time period & leaves the reader to make up their own mind -
> she doesn't suppose or impose. A good factual read...
>
> I wonder when the last time anyone 'asked' the Queen about DNA testing...
> maybe William will be more open to the idea - I'd love to drop him a line!
>
> Lisa
>
> On 28 April 2012 23:14, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi Rossi
>>
>> You'll find that some of us are very openminded about Richard. We find much
>> to admire in him, much to interest us (and of course, fascinated by the
>> history) but we have few illusions about him he was a man of his time,
>> after all. You'll be in good company here.
>>
>> As to the bones, the Queen is never going to allow dna testing on the
>> remains of her ancestors or, in the case of the bones in the Tower, even
>> possible ancestors.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:26:44 -0500
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Hi all
>>
>> I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
>> live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
>> is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
>> first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
>> novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
>> My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
>> so much about.
>>
>> I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
>> I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
>> see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
>> two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
>> that's how I discovered this group.
>>
>> As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
>> would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
>> I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
>> deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
>> but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
>> I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
>> Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
>> for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
>> Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
>> Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
>> challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
>> rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
>> secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
>> and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
>> if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
>>
>> Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
>> world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
>> mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
>> sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
>> of course.
>>
>> I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
>> this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
>> forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
>> history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
>> would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
>>
>> Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
>> and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
>> she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
>> Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
>> interested in archaeology.
>>
>> Rossi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
> Restoration Portfolio Photographs
> Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Hi all
2012-04-30 12:07:06
Welcome to the group, glad to hear you are so interested in British history. I think you will find this group very supportive and knowledgeable.
Like you my interest started as a child and I went from novels to real history, although I still read novels for pleasure.
The bones in Westminster are suggested to be those of the Princes, but any DNA testing has to have the approval of the Queen, as Westminster Abbey is her church as such and despite requests this has been turned down in the past. I believe that Prince Charles with his interest in science, arts etc may well have a more open minded view in years to come.
You might also find the book Perkin, by Ann Wroe interesting, many believe that Perkin Warbeck was Richard the youngest brother, unfortunately as he died a traitor so we have no grave to DNA test his bones if they were available. Likewise John the illegitimate son of Richard III.
I think that Richard was a man of his time and that the beheading of Hasting without trial,which to us seems terrible, was not uncommon I also believe that the betrayal by a friend was what drove Richard to such excess, also fear as the plot could have so easily have been successful.
I do not believe that Richard murdered his nephews, the most likely scenario to me is that Edward died, as he had a fair few visits by his doctor while in the tower, and that the youngest Richard was taken to live abroad. I believe that Warbeck was Prince Richard, but he lacked the backing of enough people with military experience to assist him with the rebellion, and came at a time where England was starting to enjoy some peace and many did not want a return to the fighting.
As for the deaths of Richard III 's wife and son, I think to say it was gods judgement is very strong. but the reality may have been that he died a somewhat broken man, who had honour so he fought to his death trying to ensure those of his line continued to reign, either offspring from a new marriage or his nephew Lincoln.
Hope you continue to enjoy the group, I have been on it for years, many of the people here are highly educated and fascinating when they state their views.
Marion
________________________________
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012, 14:26
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvillesrealized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Like you my interest started as a child and I went from novels to real history, although I still read novels for pleasure.
The bones in Westminster are suggested to be those of the Princes, but any DNA testing has to have the approval of the Queen, as Westminster Abbey is her church as such and despite requests this has been turned down in the past. I believe that Prince Charles with his interest in science, arts etc may well have a more open minded view in years to come.
You might also find the book Perkin, by Ann Wroe interesting, many believe that Perkin Warbeck was Richard the youngest brother, unfortunately as he died a traitor so we have no grave to DNA test his bones if they were available. Likewise John the illegitimate son of Richard III.
I think that Richard was a man of his time and that the beheading of Hasting without trial,which to us seems terrible, was not uncommon I also believe that the betrayal by a friend was what drove Richard to such excess, also fear as the plot could have so easily have been successful.
I do not believe that Richard murdered his nephews, the most likely scenario to me is that Edward died, as he had a fair few visits by his doctor while in the tower, and that the youngest Richard was taken to live abroad. I believe that Warbeck was Prince Richard, but he lacked the backing of enough people with military experience to assist him with the rebellion, and came at a time where England was starting to enjoy some peace and many did not want a return to the fighting.
As for the deaths of Richard III 's wife and son, I think to say it was gods judgement is very strong. but the reality may have been that he died a somewhat broken man, who had honour so he fought to his death trying to ensure those of his line continued to reign, either offspring from a new marriage or his nephew Lincoln.
Hope you continue to enjoy the group, I have been on it for years, many of the people here are highly educated and fascinating when they state their views.
Marion
________________________________
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012, 14:26
Subject: Hi all
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvillesrealized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Re: Hi all
2012-05-01 06:38:01
hello roslyn..from another roslyn..we are a rare name :-)
there is some debate within and without the group as to the fate of the princes.
here is a link to a rarely observed set of scenarios regarding what happened to the princes in 1483. the assorted rumours of the day are on about page 292 (edward v). or scroll to very near the bottom of page of the google book Pastime of People by John Rastell. rastell was sir thomas more's brother-in-law. the book was first published in 1529.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=eV8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Pastime+of+People%22+rastell&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f5DT_WzBQv&sig=axpGIXEEk4DaCDQ4k1_3708Od2A&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
i personally believe henry duke of buckingham was responsible for the death of the princes. i don't believe he had richard's consent, and he did it without r3 knowledge.
i do not believe either boy survived. i do believe they were removed from the tower/london and murdered else where.
roslyn
--- On Sat, 4/28/12, Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...> wrote:
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
Subject: Hi all
To:
Received: Saturday, April 28, 2012, 9:26 AM
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
there is some debate within and without the group as to the fate of the princes.
here is a link to a rarely observed set of scenarios regarding what happened to the princes in 1483. the assorted rumours of the day are on about page 292 (edward v). or scroll to very near the bottom of page of the google book Pastime of People by John Rastell. rastell was sir thomas more's brother-in-law. the book was first published in 1529.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=eV8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Pastime+of+People%22+rastell&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f5DT_WzBQv&sig=axpGIXEEk4DaCDQ4k1_3708Od2A&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
i personally believe henry duke of buckingham was responsible for the death of the princes. i don't believe he had richard's consent, and he did it without r3 knowledge.
i do not believe either boy survived. i do believe they were removed from the tower/london and murdered else where.
roslyn
--- On Sat, 4/28/12, Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...> wrote:
From: Roslyn Minenko <rossi.minenko@...>
Subject: Hi all
To:
Received: Saturday, April 28, 2012, 9:26 AM
I'm Rossi, and I have an avid interest in British history, even though I
live in the U.S. At the risk of sounding like a traitor, Britain's history
is more interesting than our history. It all started when I picked up my
first historical novel when I was a kid. As time went on I dropped reading
novels in favor of reading the actual history. (Yeah I'm a bit of a geek).
My dream is to one day visit Britain and see some of these places I've read
so much about.
I watched the whole of the trial of Richard III on youtube. Up until then,
I hadn't known much about the bones found in the tower. I was googling to
see if anyone had managed to pull off a DNA test, which lead to a link on
two small coffins supposedly discovered in the tomb of Edward IV - and
that's how I discovered this group.
As far as Richard III himself, I'm actually fairly neutral. I know that he
would have been hung out to dry when the Woodvilles realized full power -
I get his perspective, and I do believe that he was responsible for the
deaths of the Princes, however, I don't believe that it was by his own hand
but on his orders. I'm sure it wasn't a decision that was come to lightly.
I'm one of the few people who have actually read Machiavelli, and
Machiavelli basically tells is like it is. (And has been condemned by some
for doing so). I mean look at Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI , or what
Henry VII did with Warwick - a deed which would be akin to the death of the
Princes if Warwick was indeed what was termed a 'simpleton' (mentally
challenged). The former King, or possible throne claimant will always be a
rallying point for rebellion. You did what you had to do to consolidate and
secure power. The reason Richard III was so reviled is because Edward V
and his brother Richard were children, but I'm sure you all know this even
if you don't agree with Richard's guilt.
Yeah, the death of the Princes is horrifying, but we here in the modern
world have trouble imagining the mindset of Richard III's time. As the
mother of three sons, I would find it equally horrifying see one of my
sons, say as a 16 year old, riding to battle, but back then it was a matter
of course.
I'm sure this has all been gone over before somewhere here, but at least
this gives an idea of where I stand. I know this is a pro-Richard III
forum, but I'm neither pro nor against Richard. I just find the whole
history facinating. Were I living in that time, and in his position, what
would I do? I honestly can't speak without that experience.
Some things I'm facinated by are Edward IV's possibly not being legitimate,
and if Richard III knew of it. I've always wondered about Anne Neville, how
she felt after the death of Edward of Westminster, and then marrying
Richard, and the true identity of the tower bones - but then I'm also
interested in archaeology.
Rossi
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.