Richard's other motto

Perhaps this was discussed by Pamela Tudor-Craig in the 1973 exhibition
catalog, but while rummaging on the internet today, I came across this:

A MS of Wickliffeýs New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister,
esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto
somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]ý

A *nous* me ly

Gloucestre.

This has been examined by Sir Frederic Madden and attributed by him (in
the Oxford edition of Wycliffeýs Bible, 1850,) to the hand of the duke of
Gloucester.


This passage is from a book published in 1854*, so it makes me wonder if
the writing has deteriorated further before it was copied for the
exhibition, or if it's just a difference in interpretation.


There's also a book of autographs published in 1829 (also on Google Books)
with several of Richard's autographs, but it doesn't include the phrase in
question.


A J


* *Grants, Etc from the Crown during the Reign of Edward the Fifth, from
the original docket-book MS. Harl. 433*. John Gough Nichols, M. DCCC.LIV. (
Camden Society). Available on Google Books.

A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]—
>
> A *nous* me ly
>
> Gloucestre. [snip]

Carol responds:

I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."

Carol

Yes, I also have a couple of modern photographs, but what we don't know is
if what we see now is what the inscription looked like in earlier ages.
More surfing has produced evidence that the inscription has been read as
"a uous me ly" as well as "a vous me ly," in the 1800's as well as a
prevailing opinion in the 19th century that it was the signature of the
"good" Duke of Gloucester, Humphrey. Don't have my copy of Tudor-Craig
handy at work, so I can't check to see what her counter-argument might be.

A J


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister,
> esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto
> somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]ý
> >
> > A *nous* me ly
> >
> > Gloucestre. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could
> conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but
> there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks
> like "no9."
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto


> Don't have my copy of Tudor-Craig
handy at work, so I can't check to see what her counter-argument might be.

She just says:

At the bottom of f.1 in a hand which has been accepted as that of Richard
Duke of Gloucester by Sir Frederick Madden: 'A vo' me ly Gloucestre'.

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Yes, I also have a couple of modern photographs, but what we don't know is if what we see now is what the inscription looked like in earlier ages.
> More surfing has produced evidence that the inscription has been read as "a uous me ly" as well as "a vous me ly," in the 1800's as well as a prevailing opinion in the 19th century that it was the signature of the "good" Duke of Gloucester, Humphrey. Don't have my copy of Tudor-Craig handy at work, so I can't check to see what her counter-argument might be.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

I think the signature "Gloucestre" is close enough to his writing in other documents to be proof in itself, along with the resemblance "a vous/nous me ly" to his later motto. If Tudor-Craig needed additional evidence, it could be found in Humphrey of Gloucester's own signature--or in the utter unlikelihood of his owning a Wycliffe Bible. Didn't his brother Henry V burn heretics?

So it *did* belong to the "good" duke of Gloucester, just not to Humphrey! Maybe, the nineteenth-century historians didn't have access to other samples of his handwriting for comparison?

Carol

Hmmm. So we have 2 trails of opinion, it seems about the motto & its
authorship. One followed by P T-C, in the footsteps of Sir Frederic
Madden, which is referred to in the work by John Gough Nichols in his book
in 1854 (quoted in my earlier e-mail). Nichols also points to Madden's
Oxford edition of Wycliffe's Bible from 1850. The 1850 edition of the
Wycliffe Bible included in its lists of manuscripts used

32. Egerton 617, 618. Vellum, 2 vols., which originally formed only one,
in large folio, 2 cols., written about 1420; at the top of the second leaf,
inserted in the border, are the arms of Humphrey, duke of Gloucesterý



Thomas Banister, Esq., of the Inner Temple.

162. Banister. Vellum, small folio, 2 cols. pp. 6 and 276, written perhaps
about 1390. The first three leaves containing the Kalendar, with the
lessons inserted, are by a different scribe, though not much, if at all,
later than the body of the Ms. At the bottom of the first page in a hand
of xv. cent., ýa uous me ly, Gloucestre,ý probably the Duke of Gloucester
afterwards Rich. III. ý


The fact that the Egerton ms can be linked to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester
has clearly induced others to believe that the 2nd (Banister) ms should
also be linked to him, as evidenced by its being offered for sale in 1884,
described as


English:

16043 Wycliffeýs English Testament. The New Testament translated into
English by John Wycliffe, small folio.

Fine perfect MS. on vellum, with the autograph of Good Duke Humphrey (ýA
vous me ly Gloucester,ý i e, a vous je me lie) on the first page; being
Codex S of Sir Frederick Maddenýs edition; bound in rough old calf and
enclosed in a red leather bag, from the library of the late Thomas
Banister, ý1000. / about 1390 [from A Catalogue of Religions and
Superstitions:...Offered for Cash at the affixed net prices by Bernard
Quaritch. London, August, 1884.]


A J


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> > Don't have my copy of Tudor-Craig
> handy at work, so I can't check to see what her counter-argument might be.
>
> She just says:
>
> At the bottom of f.1 in a hand which has been accepted as that of Richard
> Duke of Gloucester by Sir Frederick Madden: 'A vo' me ly Gloucestre'.
>
>
>

I don't disagree with your characterization of Richard, as (also) "good"
Duke of Gloucester.

There was, however, at least one published source with Richard's autographs
(4 of them) from 1829. This book also has an autograph of Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, which I will attempt to paste --

[image: Inline image 1]

If that doesn't work, what is identified as Humphrey's signature can be
found on Google Books by searching for nichols +autographs +1829. It's
item no 8 on the first full plate of signatures, or the third over from the
left in the third group down from the top of the page.

A J

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>


> So it *did* belong to the "good" duke of Gloucester, just not to Humphrey!
> Maybe, the nineteenth-century historians didn't have access to other
> samples of his handwriting for comparison?
>
> Carol
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Hmmm. So we have 2 trails of opinion, it seems about the motto & its authorship. One followed by P T-C, in the footsteps of Sir Frederic Madden, which is referred to in the work by John Gough Nichols in his book in 1854 (quoted in my earlier e-mail). Nichols also points to Madden's Oxford edition of Wycliffe's Bible from 1850. The 1850 edition of the Wycliffe Bible included in its lists of manuscripts used

[snip]

Carol responds:

That's very interesting--and strange. I don't know about the arms of Humphrey of Gloucester, but the handwriting and motto are clearly Richard's. And it would be very surprising if Humphrey of Gloucester owned a Wycliffe Bible.

Do you have access to "Richard III's Books: Ideal and Reality in the Life of a Medieval Prince" by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, which would provide a definitive answer to this question?

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-IIIs-Books-Reality-Medieval/dp/0750914068

It's an incredibly expensive book, with used copies on Amazon starting at $283.21! (Needless to say, I wish I had bought it when it was affordable!)

Also, there are several articles on Richard's English Bible in the Ricardian (though none by those authors): http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php

If that Bible belonged to Humphrey rather than Richard, which I very much doubt, then all our conclusions based on Richard's ownership of the Bible must be false.

But my assumption is that the nineteenth-century authors who ascribed the ownership to Humphrey did so because they couldn't imagine the "ungodly" Richard owning and signing a Bible. How unfortunate that he didn't include the R in this particular signature!

Carol

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Hmmm. So we have 2 trails of opinion, it seems about the motto & its authorship. [snip]

> The fact that the Egerton ms can be linked to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester has clearly induced others to believe that the 2nd (Banister) ms should also be linked to him, as evidenced by its being offered for sale in 1884, described as [snip]

Carol responds:

I know I already responded to this post, but on a closer reading, I think I understand what happened. There are two manuscripts, one (Egerton) linked to Humphrey of Gloucester (who, if he was flirting with Lollardy, was taking his life into his own hands) and (Bansiter) one which was clearly Richard's but was misattributed to Humphrey through confusion with the first one.

At any rate, whatever the case with the Egerton ms., the Banister one clearly belonged to Richard. Whew!

Carol

Carol, how can we access these articles? They are not in the online achieve are they? Do I have to request the society for the articles? How does this work?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm. So we have 2 trails of opinion, it seems about the motto & its authorship. One followed by P T-C, in the footsteps of Sir Frederic Madden, which is referred to in the work by John Gough Nichols in his book in 1854 (quoted in my earlier e-mail). Nichols also points to Madden's Oxford edition of Wycliffe's Bible from 1850. The 1850 edition of the Wycliffe Bible included in its lists of manuscripts used
>
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's very interesting--and strange. I don't know about the arms of Humphrey of Gloucester, but the handwriting and motto are clearly Richard's. And it would be very surprising if Humphrey of Gloucester owned a Wycliffe Bible.
>
> Do you have access to "Richard III's Books: Ideal and Reality in the Life of a Medieval Prince" by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, which would provide a definitive answer to this question?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Richard-IIIs-Books-Reality-Medieval/dp/0750914068
>
> It's an incredibly expensive book, with used copies on Amazon starting at $283.21! (Needless to say, I wish I had bought it when it was affordable!)
>
> Also, there are several articles on Richard's English Bible in the Ricardian (though none by those authors): http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
>
> If that Bible belonged to Humphrey rather than Richard, which I very much doubt, then all our conclusions based on Richard's ownership of the Bible must be false.
>
> But my assumption is that the nineteenth-century authors who ascribed the ownership to Humphrey did so because they couldn't imagine the "ungodly" Richard owning and signing a Bible. How unfortunate that he didn't include the R in this particular signature!
>
> Carol
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> There was, however, at least one published source with Richard's autographs
> (4 of them) from 1829. This book also has an autograph of Humphrey Duke of
> Gloucester, which I will attempt to paste --
>
> [image: Inline image 1] [snip]

Thanks for the reference, which I'll check in a moment. You can't paste images into a message in a Yahoo forum, but you can add it to the Files. Just go to the website for our forum, click the Files link, click Add files, choose your file from the Browse list and give it a description, and check the box to send a message to the group that a file has been uploaded.

Off to check the other good duke's signature in Google Books.

Carol

Thanks Carol. It's really a small image, & I'm not sure it merits a spot
in the files area. Wish I had paid more attention to what I was reading
today, but this wasn't really what I was looking for, & only of interest
because of the recent discussions here about the motto itself & the
possible implications of Richard's having owned a Wycliffe Bible. One of
the books I was skimming seemed to be making a reasonable argument about
the trail of ownership of the ms with the motto as having belonged to Duke
Humphrey. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can find that again.

A J

I do have the book of Richard's Books - picked up used for a mere song of
$65.00 (must have been just before the speculation in Richard-related books
took off). Wish I'd managed to snag a copy of Annette Carson's Maligned
King; but my open order is still sitting on Amazon.co.uk with the helpful
comment "we need a little more time to provide you with a good estimate"....

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > There was, however, at least one published source with Richard's
> autographs
> > (4 of them) from 1829. This book also has an autograph of Humphrey Duke
> of
> > Gloucester, which I will attempt to paste --
> >
> > [image: Inline image 1] [snip]
>
> Thanks for the reference, which I'll check in a moment. You can't paste
> images into a message in a Yahoo forum, but you can add it to the Files.
> Just go to the website for our forum, click the Files link, click Add
> files, choose your file from the Browse list and give it a description, and
> check the box to send a message to the group that a file has been uploaded.
>
> Off to check the other good duke's signature in Google Books.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's other motto


> If that Bible belonged to Humphrey rather than Richard, which I very much
> doubt, then all our conclusions based on Richard's ownership of the Bible
> must be false.

Not necessarily - he also owned an OT in English. And it could have
belonged to Humphrey *and* to Richard. But Tudor-Craig doesn't mention any
arms, only that there is part of a writ from the era of Henry IV on one of
the pages. Which incidentally shows that at least one owner of this book
was willing to write fairly frivolous secular material into a bible. They
may not have regarded this translation as being the actual Word of God, but
more in the nature of a study aid.

A J Hibbard wrote:
> [snip]
> If that doesn't work, what is identified as Humphrey's signature can be found on Google Books by searching for nichols +autographs +1829. It's item no 8 on the first full plate of signatures, or the third over from the left in the third group down from the top of the page.

Carol responds:

Thank you very mcuh. Found it (with some trouble--Google books is not easy to navigate). There's no resemblance between Humphrey's signature and Richard's, so we're back on safe ground. The attribution of the motto to Humphrey is clearly an error as I thought.

BTW, they should all take a lesson from Talbot and Suffolk, whose signatures are so legible that even I can read them without trouble!

Carol

Just to clarify, according to the 1850 Oxford edition of the Wycliffe
Bible, Humphrey's arms were found in the Egerton ms, not the (Banister) ms
with the motto.

A J

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> > If that Bible belonged to Humphrey rather than Richard, which I very
> much
> > doubt, then all our conclusions based on Richard's ownership of the
> Bible
> > must be false.
>
> Not necessarily - he also owned an OT in English. And it could have
> belonged to Humphrey *and* to Richard. But Tudor-Craig doesn't mention any
> arms, only that there is part of a writ from the era of Henry IV on one of
> the pages. Which incidentally shows that at least one owner of this book
> was willing to write fairly frivolous secular material into a bible. They
> may not have regarded this translation as being the actual Word of God,
> but
> more in the nature of a study aid.
>
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Carol, how can we access these articles? They are not in the online achieve are they? Do I have to request the society for the articles? How does this work?

Carol responds:

They're not accessible online. The only way I know of to access them is to buy the old Ricardians from the Society (or eBay!). They may be available in other places, such as forum members who have copies to sell. University libraries generally carry bound copies.

The Society's new webpage doesn't explain how to order the articles (the section on the Ricardian stops abruptly with "Back copies of The Ricardian are available for sale to members and non-members as follows:"), but e-mail addresses are available on the Contact page:

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

You might want to e-mail the librarian and ask her if how to borrow copies (or who to contact to buy them).

Possibly, they will eventually be made available to members when the Society's archives are online. If you're interested in a particular article, you can request a member who has it available and can scan it to upload it to the Files, but obviously that won't work for the whole set. I've had to do that on occasion since I own only a few back issues and foolishly let my membership expire about ten years ago.

Carol

A J Hibbard wrote:
[snip]
> Wish I'd managed to snag a copy of Annette Carson's Maligned
> King; but my open order is still sitting on Amazon.co.uk with the helpful comment "we need a little more time to provide you with a good estimate"....

Carol responds:

Not to worry. Annette's book is coming out in a revised edition soon. She'll let us know when so we can snatch it up before it's gone. (She promises larger print this time!) There will also be a special limited edition hardback for those who can afford it.

Carp;

Thank you Carol.
I will shoot out an email to the list and the R3 website tomorrow.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Carol, how can we access these articles? They are not in the online achieve are they? Do I have to request the society for the articles? How does this work?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> They're not accessible online. The only way I know of to access them is to buy the old Ricardians from the Society (or eBay!). They may be available in other places, such as forum members who have copies to sell. University libraries generally carry bound copies.
>
> The Society's new webpage doesn't explain how to order the articles (the section on the Ricardian stops abruptly with "Back copies of The Ricardian are available for sale to members and non-members as follows:"), but e-mail addresses are available on the Contact page:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/contact_us.php
>
> You might want to e-mail the librarian and ask her if how to borrow copies (or who to contact to buy them).
>
> Possibly, they will eventually be made available to members when the Society's archives are online. If you're interested in a particular article, you can request a member who has it available and can scan it to upload it to the Files, but obviously that won't work for the whole set. I've had to do that on occasion since I own only a few back issues and foolishly let my membership expire about ten years ago.
>
> Carol
>
>

I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
 
Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
Subject: Re: Richard's other motto


 


A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]
>
> A *nous* me ly
>
> Gloucestre. [snip]

Carol responds:

I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

> In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae'
> she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf

Wow - really definitely in her hand?

> Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have
> added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that
> Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but
> claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.
> H

Or at least, even if the marriage she was pressing for was the one Richard
was arranging for her to someone else, it does suggest that all that flowery
verbal emotion sprang from real devotion (sexual or otherwise) and that she
had real fondness for Richard and cherished his memory. Which, in turn,
makes it *even less* likely he had killed her brothers because it shows he
must have been kind and charming to Edward's daughters, even though they
too represented a possibly dynastic threat.

Good to hear it will re-released. On US Amazon, the paperback starts at $300+ and hard back is $900+!!!!

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:54 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



A J Hibbard wrote:
[snip]
> Wish I'd managed to snag a copy of Annette Carson's Maligned
> King; but my open order is still sitting on Amazon.co.uk<http://Amazon.co.uk> with the helpful comment "we need a little more time to provide you with a good estimate"....

Carol responds:

Not to worry. Annette's book is coming out in a revised edition soon. She'll let us know when so we can snatch it up before it's gone. (She promises larger print this time!) There will also be a special limited edition hardback for those who can afford it.

Carp;

Yes. It is in her hand. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:07
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

> In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae'
> she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf

Wow - really definitely in her hand?

> Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have
> added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that
> Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but
> claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.
> H

Or at least, even if the marriage she was pressing for was the one Richard
was arranging for her to someone else, it does suggest that all that flowery
verbal emotion sprang from real devotion (sexual or otherwise) and that she
had real fondness for Richard and cherished his memory. Which, in turn,
makes it *even less* likely he had killed her brothers because it shows he
must have been kind and charming to Edward's daughters, even though they
too represented a possibly dynastic threat.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto


> Yes. It is in her hand.

Gosh. Wow. Thanks.

Do we have any other examples of how she signed herself during Richard's
reign?

That is, can we deduce whether she was writing this during Richard's life,
or shortly after his death? If she wrote "without changing" near his name,
and wrote in his motto in her own hand, during his life that rather suggests
that Buck was right and she *did* have a major crush on sparky little Uncle
Dickie. If it was written after his death, though, it could be more in the
nature of an affectionate epitaph: "I'll never forget you, uncle dear, and
I'll be true to my memory of you as a good man, whatever your enemies say."

What Baldwin says is that Elizabeth would not have written this in Richard's books in the period after Richard's death knowing that she was to marry Henry. It would have been much too risky and MB 'inherited' most of them. I don't think we have other examples of just Elizabeth. Certainly when I went to the H8 exhibition at the British Library in 2009, these were the only two from that period. I think also Baldwin would have cited this had there been more.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

> Yes. It is in her hand.

Gosh. Wow. Thanks.

Do we have any other examples of how she signed herself during Richard's
reign?

That is, can we deduce whether she was writing this during Richard's life,
or shortly after his death? If she wrote "without changing" near his name,
and wrote in his motto in her own hand, during his life that rather suggests
that Buck was right and she *did* have a major crush on sparky little Uncle
Dickie. If it was written after his death, though, it could be more in the
nature of an affectionate epitaph: "I'll never forget you, uncle dear, and
I'll be true to my memory of you as a good man, whatever your enemies say."

I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
> 
>Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
>Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
>
>
>________________________________
>From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
>Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>
>
>A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]
>>
>> A *nous* me ly
>>
>> Gloucestre. [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

18 ish depending on when it was written. About the right age, given the circumstances.



________________________________
From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:37
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto

 

I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
Sheffe

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
> 
>Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
>Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
>
>
>________________________________
>From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
>Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>
>
>A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]
>>
>> A *nous* me ly
>>
>> Gloucestre. [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its good to see you back Sheffe...you havent posted for a while ..Eileen

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> > 
> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
> > 
> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]â€"
> >>
> >> A *nous* me ly
> >>
> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:

"Good to hear it will re-released. On US Amazon, the paperback starts at
$300+ and hard back is $900+!!!!"

Good grief! I gues this means I should list *my* paperback copy on my
insurance...
Doug

Yes you should......and your address Douglas????? Just teasing.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:41 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:

"Good to hear it will re-released. On US Amazon, the paperback starts at
$300+ and hard back is $900+!!!!"

Good grief! I gues this means I should list *my* paperback copy on my
insurance...
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes. It is in her hand.

Carol responds:

Any chance that you can upload it to the forum as a file?

Carol

Doug, me too!!

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

On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> "Good to hear it will re-released. On US Amazon, the paperback starts at
> $300+ and hard back is $900+!!!!"
>
> Good grief! I gues this means I should list *my* paperback copy on my
> insurance...
> Doug
>
>

I'll see what I can do. H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:57
Subject: Re: Richard's other motto

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes. It is in her hand.

Carol responds:

Any chance that you can upload it to the forum as a file?

Carol

Wow!
If she had such affection for her uncle, I wonder how she must have felt about Henry Tudor."If"she felt sexual attraction towards Richard and people knew it, that might explain Henry's exclusion of her in public matters. Small revenges?

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

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
> > Yes. It is in her hand.
>
> Gosh. Wow. Thanks.
>
> Do we have any other examples of how she signed herself during Richard's
> reign?
>
> That is, can we deduce whether she was writing this during Richard's life,
> or shortly after his death? If she wrote "without changing" near his name,
> and wrote in his motto in her own hand, during his life that rather suggests
> that Buck was right and she *did* have a major crush on sparky little Uncle
> Dickie. If it was written after his death, though, it could be more in the
> nature of an affectionate epitaph: "I'll never forget you, uncle dear, and
> I'll be true to my memory of you as a good man, whatever your enemies say."
>
>

19 and I married. 19 was old by their standard.....

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

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush. How old was this kid?
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> >To: ">
> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> >
> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics.
> >
> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf
> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter. H
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]
> >>
> >> A *nous* me ly
> >>
> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Lord, I was 21 the first time, and 34 the second. I was a better picker at 34, but OLD, in their day!

On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:05 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



19 and I married. 19 was old by their standard.....

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Sheffe <shethra77@...<mailto:shethra77%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush. How old was this kid?
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
> >To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>@yahoogroups.com<http://yahoogroups.com>>
> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> >
> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics.
> >
> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf
> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter. H
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]ý
> >>
> >> A *nous* me ly
> >>
> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Lord, I was 21 the first time, and 34 the second. I was a better picker at 34, but OLD, in their day!
>


No older than Joanna of Portugal, mind you!!

Haha!
I had my daughter at 31! I would probably be a grandma by their standard!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > Lord, I was 21 the first time, and 34 the second. I was a better picker at 34, but OLD, in their day!
> >
>
> No older than Joanna of Portugal, mind you!!
>
>

Yes, that is in the age range for truly bad crushes. :)

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:43 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>18 ish depending on when it was written. About the right age, given the circumstances.
>
>________________________________
>From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:37
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
> 
>
>I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
>Sheffe
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>>
>>
>> 
>>I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
>> 
>>Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>>Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>>In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>>In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
>>Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H
>
>
>
>Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
>.
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Eileen.  I have been paying attention in fits and spurts.  But I haven't had time to keep up with the torrent--just set them aside in a virtually bulging folder.  But I missed seeing everyone here.
Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11 AM
>Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>Its good to see you back Sheffe...you havent posted for a while ..Eileen
>
>--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
>> Sheffe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>> >To: ">
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
>> > 
>> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
>> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
>> >
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
>> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
>> >
>> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]â¬"
>> >>
>> >> A *nous* me ly
>> >>
>> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Sheffe..It seems to be getting back to normality on here...what that is :0)

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Eileen.  I have been paying attention in fits and spurts.  But I haven't had time to keep up with the torrent--just set them aside in a virtually bulging folder.  But I missed seeing everyone here.
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11 AM
> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> >
> >
> > 
> >Its good to see you back Sheffe...you havent posted for a while ..Eileen
> >
> >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
> >> Sheffe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> >> >To: "@[email protected]>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
> >> > 
> >> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
> >> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
> >> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
> >> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
> >> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >________________________________
> >> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
> >> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]â€"
> >> >>
> >> >> A *nous* me ly
> >> >>
> >> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
> >> >
> >> >Carol responds:
> >> >
> >> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
> >> >
> >> >Carol
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Should have read "whatever that is"...:0/

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Sheffe..It seems to be getting back to normality on here...what that is :0)
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen.  I have been paying attention in fits and spurts.  But I haven't had time to keep up with the torrent--just set them aside in a virtually bulging folder.  But I missed seeing everyone here.
> > Sheffe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Its good to see you back Sheffe...you havent posted for a while ..Eileen
> > >
> > >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid? 
> > >> Sheffe
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >________________________________
> > >> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > >> >To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
> > >> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 
> > >> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics. 
> > >> > 
> > >> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
> > >> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
> > >> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
> > >> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf 
> > >> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.   H 
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >________________________________
> > >> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > >> >To:
> > >> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
> > >> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]â€"
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A *nous* me ly
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
> > >> >
> > >> >Carol responds:
> > >> >
> > >> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
> > >> >
> > >> >Carol
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

I moved in with my later-husband when I was 19.  Of course, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Elizabeth of York to have been married and a mom by that age.  But I see people getting crushes from the ages of 12 to 25--some later than that.  She wasn't married, was around an attractive, powerful man...
Yes, this is speculation. 
But it makes better sense than thinking Richard wanted to marry her.  He'd had trouble enough trying to get the right dispensations to make his marriage to Anne legal. 


Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>19 and I married. 19 was old by their standard.....
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>www.ishitabandyo.com
>www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush. How old was this kid?
>> Sheffe
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>> >To: ">
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's motto it's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics.
>> >
>> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the same page as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth and 'loyalte me lye' on the flyleaf
>> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter. H
>> >
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:16
>> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >A MS of Wickliffe's New Testament, in the possession of Thomas Banister, esq. of the Inner Temple, is inscibed on its first page with a motto somewhat resembling the former [Loyaulte me lie]
>> >>
>> >> A *nous* me ly
>> >>
>> >> Gloucestre. [snip]
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >I have the photo (in "Road to Bosworth"). The second word could conceivably be "nos" (in fact, it looks more like "nos" than "vos," but there's nothing to suggest a "u" as in "nous" or "vous." In fact, it looks like "no9."
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well! 

It's the tiny fish, girded, holding their mightier-than-swords pens in fins, rampant as all get-out.
You've gotta love it.

Sheffe







>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>Sheffe..It seems to be getting back to normality on here...what that is :0)
>
>--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Eileen.  I have been paying attention in fits and spurts.  But I haven't had time to keep up with the torrent--just set them aside in a virtually bulging folder.  But I missed seeing everyone here.
>> Sheffe
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>> 
>> >Its good to see you back Sheffe...you havent posted for a while ..Eileen
>> >
>> >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think it gives credence to little Lizzy's maybe having a really bad crush.  How old was this kid?
>> >> Sheffe
>______________________________
>> >> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
>> >> >To: "@[email protected]>
>> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:55 AM
>> >> >Subject: Re: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>> >> >I put this here, because whilst it's on topic for Richard's mottoàit's also on another topic EOY. I find at the moment that there are so many posts that no-one finds new topics.
>
>> >> >Whilst looking at Baldwin's Lost Prince which speculates that Richard of Eastwell was Richard of Shrewsbury I came across his views on EOY's inscriptions in Richard's books. Do you remember that someone on the forum suggested, quite reasonably, that they could have been written afterwards?.
>> >> >Well Baldwin says the Princess only ever signed herself as 'Elizabeth the King's Daughter' or 'Elizabeth the Queen'. In both these books she just signs herself 'Elizabeth' which would imply she is in the period when the King has died, and she is not yet Queen ie between April 1483 and January 1486.
>> >> >In 'Tristan' where she writes her name on the sameàpage as him she writes 'sans re(mo)vyr Elyzabeth' - without changing, Elizabeth
>> >> >In a French translation of De Boethius's 'De consolatione philosophiae' she writes Elyzabeth andà'loyalteàme lye' on the flyleafà
>> >> >Now as Baldwin says, he could have loaned them to her and she could have added the words but it is fascinating. He does not go on to say that Richard gave them out of anything but the affection of an uncle, but claims they do give credence to some interpretations of the Buck letter.
>
>

Sheffe rote:
>
> I moved in with my later-husband when I was 19.  Of course, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Elizabeth of York to have been married and a mom by that age.  But I see people getting crushes from the ages of 12 to 25--some later than that.  She wasn't married, was around an attractive, powerful man...
> Yes, this is speculation. 
> But it makes better sense than thinking Richard wanted to marry her.  He'd had trouble enough trying to get the right dispensations to make his marriage to Anne legal. 

Carol responds:

We had a lengthy discussion on this topic while you were away from the forum, the consensus being that Richard's vehement denial of any plan to marry Elizabeth, the marriage negotiations with Portugal, and the need to reverse Titulus Regius if he married EoY (along with other disadvantages and no advantage whatever) made it almost certain that Richard never contemplated marrying her (whatever her own wishes in the matter may have been).

Regarding the dispensations for Richard's marriage, they may not have been as difficult to obtain as most people think. Have you seen the article that Marie posted to the Files before she took her most recent vacation from the forum? The article is called Diriment Impediments, Dispensations & Divorce: RIII and is filed as Dispensation Article for Ricardian 2007.doc

Don't know whether one or both of those titles will link. If not, you can find it by linking on the Files link on the website.

Carol

Thanks, Carol.

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:28 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard's other motto
>
>
> 
>Sheffe rote:
>>
>> I moved in with my later-husband when I was 19.  Of course, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Elizabeth of York to have been married and a mom by that age.  But I see people getting crushes from the ages of 12 to 25--some later than that.  She wasn't married, was around an attractive, powerful man...
>> Yes, this is speculation. 
>> But it makes better sense than thinking Richard wanted to marry her.  He'd had trouble enough trying to get the right dispensations to make his marriage to Anne legal. 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>We had a lengthy discussion on this topic while you were away from the forum, the consensus being that Richard's vehement denial of any plan to marry Elizabeth, the marriage negotiations with Portugal, and the need to reverse Titulus Regius if he married EoY (along with other disadvantages and no advantage whatever) made it almost certain that Richard never contemplated marrying her (whatever her own wishes in the matter may have been).
>
>Regarding the dispensations for Richard's marriage, they may not have been as difficult to obtain as most people think. Have you seen the article that Marie posted to the Files before she took her most recent vacation from the forum? The article is called Diriment Impediments, Dispensations & Divorce: RIII and is filed as Dispensation Article for Ricardian 2007.doc
>
>Don't know whether one or both of those titles will link. If not, you can find it by linking on the Files link on the website.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>