Margaret Beaufort's Location?

Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?

~Weds

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?

Carol responds:

Hi, Weds! Good to have you back! Richard had placed her under her husband's supervision (he was supposed to ensure her good behavior--no comment), so I assume that she was on Lord Stanley's estate in Cheshire or Lancashire. I'll take a stab in the dark and say Cheshire, which would have been closer to Sir William's home. If I recall correctly, his men at Bosworth were Cheshiremen.

Carol, preparing for an onslaught of corrections

Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) Margaret was probably at Woking in Surrey due to her previous connections with Guildford/Surrey as a Stafford. Henry met up with her at Guildford round about 21st September, having spent two weeks in London from 7th September. Stanley had promised Richard he would keep her in a secret place without servants, but it would seem no-one really knows. So Cheshire could be right or she could have been in Surrey all along.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:02
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?

Carol responds:

Hi, Weds! Good to have you back! Richard had placed her under her husband's supervision (he was supposed to ensure her good behavior--no comment), so I assume that she was on Lord Stanley's estate in Cheshire or Lancashire. I'll take a stab in the dark and say Cheshire, which would have been closer to Sir William's home. If I recall correctly, his men at Bosworth were Cheshiremen.

Carol, preparing for an onslaught of corrections

Hilary and Carol,

Thanks so much for your help, you two. Maybe she actually enjoyed being in a sekrit place [likely of her own choosing] with sekrit servants like Bray, so she could go on doing her sekrit machinations.

You have to wonder if Richard's seeming fascination with chivalry wasn't responsible for blinding him where conniving wimmen were concerned.

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) Margaret was probably at Woking in Surrey due to her previous connections with Guildford/Surrey as a Stafford. Henry met up with her at Guildford round about 21st September, having spent two weeks in London from 7th September. Stanley had promised Richard he would keep her in a secret place without servants, but it would seem no-one really knows. So Cheshire could be right or she could have been in Surrey all along.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:02
> Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?
>
>  
>
> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Weds! Good to have you back! Richard had placed her under her husband's supervision (he was supposed to ensure her good behavior--no comment), so I assume that she was on Lord Stanley's estate in Cheshire or Lancashire. I'll take a stab in the dark and say Cheshire, which would have been closer to Sir William's home. If I recall correctly, his men at Bosworth were Cheshiremen.
>
> Carol, preparing for an onslaught of corrections

A good point!!



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 19:14
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary and Carol,

Thanks so much for your help, you two. Maybe she actually enjoyed being in a sekrit place [likely of her own choosing] with sekrit servants like Bray, so she could go on doing her sekrit machinations.

You have to wonder if Richard's seeming fascination with chivalry wasn't responsible for blinding him where conniving wimmen were concerned.

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) Margaret was probably at Woking in Surrey due to her previous connections with Guildford/Surrey as a Stafford. Henry met up with her at Guildford round about 21st September, having spent two weeks in London from 7th September. Stanley had promised Richard he would keep her in a secret place without servants, but it would seem no-one really knows. So Cheshire could be right or she could have been in Surrey all along.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:02
> Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?
>
>  
>
> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Weds! Good to have you back! Richard had placed her under her husband's supervision (he was supposed to ensure her good behavior--no comment), so I assume that she was on Lord Stanley's estate in Cheshire or Lancashire. I'll take a stab in the dark and say Cheshire, which would have been closer to Sir William's home. If I recall correctly, his men at Bosworth were Cheshiremen.
>
> Carol, preparing for an onslaught of corrections

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

  Lord Stanley, Created 1st Earl of Derby after Bosworth by his stepson Henry Tudor, Later Henry VII had his principal seat @ Lathom, near Ormskirk in Lancashire. He was buried at nearby Burscough Priory but his effigy & remains were translated to Ormskirk after the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII.

  Ormskirk church, situated in a small market town, benefited greatly from the 'Dissolution', much of the dressed stone from the nearby Burscough Priory aforementioned went to extend the church & build the Derby chapel. More interesting from the 'Architectural Historian's' point of view was the building of a MASSIVE bell tower to house the bells from the priory, making Ormskirk one of ONLY three churches in England with both a 'Tower & a Steeple' [The other two being in Wiltshire.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:02
>Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?
>
>
> 
>Wednesday wrote:
>>
>> Do we have any idea where Margaret Beaufort was when Bosworth was being fought?
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Hi, Weds! Good to have you back! Richard had placed her under her husband's supervision (he was supposed to ensure her good behavior--no comment), so I assume that she was on Lord Stanley's estate in Cheshire or Lancashire. I'll take a stab in the dark and say Cheshire, which would have been closer to Sir William's home. If I recall correctly, his men at Bosworth were Cheshiremen.
>
>Carol, preparing for an onslaught of corrections
>
>
>
>
>

I think I only paid about £6.99 for mine, but in those days Richard was a niche interest for the nerds.
Having thought the MB thing through I reckon she must have been in the south. Otherwise she would have had to pass through London to Guildford, so why didn't she stop off and wait for Henry there so she could see him earlier? Would love to have been a fly on the wall when they met!
It's interesting that while Henry stayed with her he gave her Coldharbour as her London residence and the wardship of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was to reside there. This was the 'wealthiest wardship at the disposal of the Crown' and this, together with Margaret's continuing patronage of Guildford would seem to indicate she never let go of her Stafford links. He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

But absolutely logical - MB's son was now King - her interests were not separate at all from his - there would be no one who could turn her against H7 - unlike others in the aristocracy viz William Stanley.


________________________________
: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
(snip)
 He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him. 



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:38
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

But absolutely logical - MB's son was now King - her interests were not separate at all from his - there would be no one who could turn her against H7 - unlike others in the aristocracy viz William Stanley.

________________________________
: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
(snip)
 He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

Even more than H8 trusted CofA, I'm sure H7 trusted MB above all others, male and female.  After all, if you can't trust your mother who schemed and plotted to put you on the throne, who can you trust?


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>wrote:



 
Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him. 

________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:38
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

But absolutely logical - MB's son was now King - her interests were not separate at all from his - there would be no one who could turn her against H7 - unlike others in the aristocracy viz William Stanley.

________________________________
: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
(snip)
 He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?


> Even more than H8 trusted CofA, I'm sure H7 trusted MB above all others,
> male and female. After all, if you can't trust your mother who schemed
> and plotted to put you on the throne, who can you trust?

And he had led a terribly insecure life, in which she must have been his one
safe anchor.

Or he was perhaps terrified of her - I would be!



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 11:21
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Even more than H8 trusted CofA, I'm sure H7 trusted MB above all others, male and female.  After all, if you can't trust your mother who schemed and plotted to put you on the throne, who can you trust?

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>wrote:

 
Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him. 

________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:38
Subject: Re: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

But absolutely logical - MB's son was now King - her interests were not separate at all from his - there would be no one who could turn her against H7 - unlike others in the aristocracy viz William Stanley.

________________________________
: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
(snip)
 He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Having consulted Jones and Underwood (you must try and get a cheap copy Carol) [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. It's on my wish list. If someone gives me an Amazon gift card for my birthday in April (are you listening, Mom?), I'll buy it then. At least, unlike so many other books that I want to buy, it isn't outrageously expensive. Don't let the publishers know that there's a Richard III connection or it will be as far out of my price range as the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs books. I'll have to win the lottery to buy those.

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think I only paid about £6.99 for mine, but in those days Richard was a niche interest for the nerds.
> Having thought the MB thing through I reckon she must have been in the south. Otherwise she would have had to pass through London to Guildford, so why didn't she stop off and wait for Henry there so she could see him earlier? Would love to have been a fly on the wall when they met!
> It's interesting that while Henry stayed with her he gave her Coldharbour as her London residence and the wardship of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was to reside there. This was the 'wealthiest wardship at the disposal of the Crown' and this, together with Margaret's continuing patronage of Guildford would seem to indicate she never let go of her Stafford links. He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.
>
Carol responds:

She was one woman whose power and influence even as an ostensible prisoner Henry couldn't underestimate. Without her, he could never have been king. And, of course, his shred of a Lancastrian claim came through her. Didn't she also have the wardship of Edward's sister, Margaret, who ultimately became very close to Henry VIII's Catholic daughter, Mary Tudor? No one talks about her because she's female and unlikely to be put forward as a Yorkist heir, Henry VII would have wanted her under his mother's control nonetheless. I think she was about twelve when Richard died.

As you probably know, Coldharbour was the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms. Henry kicked the heralds out and gave it to his mother. Dutiful son, lousy king.

Carol

Yes to both and I agree with your analysis of H7; I sometimes wonder whether duty came more from necessity than love. She must have been very overpowering.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Margaret Beaufort's Location?

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think I only paid about £6.99 for mine, but in those days Richard was a niche interest for the nerds.
> Having thought the MB thing through I reckon she must have been in the south. Otherwise she would have had to pass through London to Guildford, so why didn't she stop off and wait for Henry there so she could see him earlier? Would love to have been a fly on the wall when they met!
> It's interesting that while Henry stayed with her he gave her Coldharbour as her London residence and the wardship of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was to reside there. This was the 'wealthiest wardship at the disposal of the Crown' and this, together with Margaret's continuing patronage of Guildford would seem to indicate she never let go of her Stafford links. He also gave her custody of Edward Warwick. J & U surmise that this was so she could keep an eye on both of them as they were potential contenders for the throne. Interesting that she was the one entrusted with this - quite rare for a woman, I'd have thought.
>
Carol responds:

She was one woman whose power and influence even as an ostensible prisoner Henry couldn't underestimate. Without her, he could never have been king. And, of course, his shred of a Lancastrian claim came through her. Didn't she also have the wardship of Edward's sister, Margaret, who ultimately became very close to Henry VIII's Catholic daughter, Mary Tudor? No one talks about her because she's female and unlikely to be put forward as a Yorkist heir, Henry VII would have wanted her under his mother's control nonetheless. I think she was about twelve when Richard died.

As you probably know, Coldharbour was the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms. Henry kicked the heralds out and gave it to his mother. Dutiful son, lousy king.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him. 

Carol responds:

Well, Henry had seen France in the hands of Anne of Beaujeu (in a country with Salic law!), and he could not fail to have known how clever a manipulator his mother was. Still, he didn't grant any such powers to Elizabeth of York. Whether that decision was personal or political or both is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation.

It's interesting, though, that Englishwomen of Richard's and Henry's time had more freedom than women in some other European countries. Von Popellau, for one, didn't approve. Many middle-class women ran businesses and most women of the nobility were trained to run an estate when their husbands were absent. Elizabeth of York seems strangely lacking in any sort of administrative skills. Maybe as a "princess," she was regarded as a decoration, a pawn in the marriage game, and a potential producer of heirs with no need for the education that someone like Cecily Neville or Anne Beauchamp had received. All speculation, of course. (How Margaret Beaufort received any education at all in her circumstances is a mystery to me. I know. I need to read "The King's Mother." But it's like swallowing raw liver to read a sympathetic account of the woman who helped destroy Richard III.)

Carol

Oh Carol, I love the description. How about I just wait for the book report???


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:14 AM
To:
Subject: Women in charge (Was: Margaret Beaufort's Location?)



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him.Â

Carol responds:

Well, Henry had seen France in the hands of Anne of Beaujeu (in a country with Salic law!), and he could not fail to have known how clever a manipulator his mother was. Still, he didn't grant any such powers to Elizabeth of York. Whether that decision was personal or political or both is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation.

It's interesting, though, that Englishwomen of Richard's and Henry's time had more freedom than women in some other European countries. Von Popellau, for one, didn't approve. Many middle-class women ran businesses and most women of the nobility were trained to run an estate when their husbands were absent. Elizabeth of York seems strangely lacking in any sort of administrative skills. Maybe as a "princess," she was regarded as a decoration, a pawn in the marriage game, and a potential producer of heirs with no need for the education that someone like Cecily Neville or Anne Beauchamp had received. All speculation, of course. (How Margaret Beaufort received any education at all in her circumstances is a mystery to me. I know. I need to read "The King's Mother." But it's like swallowing raw liver to read a sympathetic account of the woman who helped destroy Richard III.)

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
How Margaret Beaufort received any education at all in her circumstances is a mystery to me.
>
>

Knowing her, she probably didn't receive the education, but took it. ;)

The thing of it though, is that a surprising number of women of EoY's
generation or before wielded power and armies - nominally on a temporary
basis, or in the name of a minor male, but their authority, when they had
it, was accepted:

Bona of Savoy, erstwhile bride-nominate for Edward IV, was a regent for her
son, Gian Galeazzo Sforza, after the assassination of her husband, Galeazzo
Maria Sforza, ultimately losing to Ludovico "Il Moro" Sforza, but giving
him run for his money.

Beatriz of Viseu, whose exact relation to Afonso V of Portugal I forget,
but who was the sister of Isabel the Catholic's mother, negotiated the
final peace treaty that ended the war between Afonso and the Catholic Kings.

Afonso's daughter, Joana of Portugal, was regent of Portugal while Afonso
and son Joao were campaigning in Africa.

We've already mentioned Margaret of Austria and all four daughters of the
Catholic Kings, and Anne of Beaujeu, and it does, on reflection seem very
odd to me, as I mull over this list, to say nothing of the women in her
own family, that Elizabeth of York would have been raised just to be window
dressing. If she was out of politics - or kept out of politics - I am
beginning to believe that either we have incomplete records on her
upbringing and that her lack of participation was due, at least in part, to
self-preservation, or that she may not have taken to this kind of training
as well as some of the other women we're considering.

Incidentally, Henry VIII not only entrusted Catherine of Aragon with the
kingdom while he was in France, but, during the course of the divorce
conflict, commented that, if Catherine so wished, she could have commanded
an army against him as surely and effectively as her mother commanded
armies of her own. (Anne Boleyn also scolded him once for arguing and
losing the argument against Catherine because he always did....).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting
> such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave
> Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him.ý
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Well, Henry had seen France in the hands of Anne of Beaujeu (in a country
> with Salic law!), and he could not fail to have known how clever a
> manipulator his mother was. Still, he didn't grant any such powers to
> Elizabeth of York. Whether that decision was personal or political or both
> is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation.
>
> It's interesting, though, that Englishwomen of Richard's and Henry's time
> had more freedom than women in some other European countries. Von Popellau,
> for one, didn't approve. Many middle-class women ran businesses and most
> women of the nobility were trained to run an estate when their husbands
> were absent. Elizabeth of York seems strangely lacking in any sort of
> administrative skills. Maybe as a "princess," she was regarded as a
> decoration, a pawn in the marriage game, and a potential producer of heirs
> with no need for the education that someone like Cecily Neville or Anne
> Beauchamp had received. All speculation, of course. (How Margaret Beaufort
> received any education at all in her circumstances is a mystery to me. I
> know. I need to read "The King's Mother." But it's like swallowing raw
> liver to read a sympathetic account of the woman who helped destroy Richard
> III.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Er I wouldn't describe it as sympathetic, more analytical. It's like Thomas Penn trying to explain H7 but falling out of love.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:17
Subject: RE: Women in charge (Was: Margaret Beaufort's Location?)

 

Oh Carol, I love the description. How about I just wait for the book report???

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:14 AM
To:
Subject: Women in charge (Was: Margaret Beaufort's Location?)

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Indeed logical but I can't imagine many monarchs of this period trusting such things to their mother or wife; though I suppose H8 did leave Catherine of Aragon in charge of the kingdom and she rather surprised him.Â

Carol responds:

Well, Henry had seen France in the hands of Anne of Beaujeu (in a country with Salic law!), and he could not fail to have known how clever a manipulator his mother was. Still, he didn't grant any such powers to Elizabeth of York. Whether that decision was personal or political or both is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation.

It's interesting, though, that Englishwomen of Richard's and Henry's time had more freedom than women in some other European countries. Von Popellau, for one, didn't approve. Many middle-class women ran businesses and most women of the nobility were trained to run an estate when their husbands were absent. Elizabeth of York seems strangely lacking in any sort of administrative skills. Maybe as a "princess," she was regarded as a decoration, a pawn in the marriage game, and a potential producer of heirs with no need for the education that someone like Cecily Neville or Anne Beauchamp had received. All speculation, of course. (How Margaret Beaufort received any education at all in her circumstances is a mystery to me. I know. I need to read "The King's Mother." But it's like swallowing raw liver to read a sympathetic account of the woman who helped destroy Richard III.)

Carol

From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Women in charge (Was: Margaret
Beaufort's Location?)


> The thing of it though, is that a surprising number of women of EoY's
generation or before wielded power and armies - nominally on a temporary
basis, or in the name of a minor male, but their authority, when they had
it, was accepted:

And not just in Europe. Contemporary with Richard there was a Hindu woman
called Karni Mater (Mother Karni) in Rajasthan who was not just a great
religious leader but also political and military adviser to the local kings.

I've mentione before a Young Adult book by Diana Norman, called
Fitzempress's Law. A group of 20th C teenagers are transported back to the
reign of Henry II to learn about the invention of the Common Law. One of
them is a girl who ends up with a group of young noblewomen who are being
aught the proper girlish arts of the time - how to sing and sew and play the
lute and manage the servants and how to provision and, if necessary, command
a garrison under seige.

I'm going to get that book for my ten-year-old niece. Thanks!

The list of lessons recalls the maybe not-so-incongruous image of Isabel
the Catholic, who could not only charge around in armor, but also made all
her husband's shirts (Townsend Miller reports that he complained about too
many replacement sleeves, but always wore these shirts. On the other hand,
maybe he didn't want to get into that kind of argument).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Women in charge (Was: Margaret
> Beaufort's Location?)
>
> > The thing of it though, is that a surprising number of women of EoY's
> generation or before wielded power and armies - nominally on a temporary
> basis, or in the name of a minor male, but their authority, when they had
> it, was accepted:
>
> And not just in Europe. Contemporary with Richard there was a Hindu woman
> called Karni Mater (Mother Karni) in Rajasthan who was not just a great
> religious leader but also political and military adviser to the local
> kings.
>
> I've mentione before a Young Adult book by Diana Norman, called
> Fitzempress's Law. A group of 20th C teenagers are transported back to the
> reign of Henry II to learn about the invention of the Common Law. One of
> them is a girl who ends up with a group of young noblewomen who are being
> aught the proper girlish arts of the time - how to sing and sew and play
> the
> lute and manage the servants and how to provision and, if necessary,
> command
> a garrison under seige.
>
>
>

From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Women in charge (Was: Margaret
Beaufort's Location?)


> I'm going to get that book for my ten-year-old niece. Thanks!

Fitzempress's Law is a terrific book and one of the sections deals with the
Mediaeval Jewish community, which will be of family interest to you and your
niece, but I don't think it's in print - you'll need to get it second hand.
It's a pair with a wonderful adult book by the same author called King of
the Last Days.

Can anyone tell me the best and most informative books/sources for Edmund Tudor? I find him interesting and would like to investigate further.

Sandra

You might want to read a paragraph or two in "The last days" but I can think of nothing at greater length.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort



Can anyone tell me the best and most informative books/sources for Edmund Tudor? I find him interesting and would like to investigate further.

Sandra

Thank you, Stephen.

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort


You might want to read a paragraph or two in "The last days" but I can think of nothing at greater length.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort

Can anyone tell me the best and most informative books/sources for Edmund Tudor? I find him interesting and would like to investigate further.

Sandra

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me the best and most informative books/sources for Edmund Tudor? I find him interesting and would like to investigate further.

Carol responds:

Supposedly, a Welsh bard named Lewys Glyn Cothi or Llywelyn y Glyn wrote an elegy of him which you can probably find in the Welsh National Archives. Other than that, your best bet would probably be biographies of people associated with him: his mother, Catherine of Valois; his ward and child bride, Margaret Beaufort; and, of course, his son, Henry. There are colorful bits on his father, Owen, as well, like the story of the weeping woman who "kempt" (combed) the dead Owen's hair. But Edmund himself seems to be a less romantic figure.

Carol

Only a couple of pages in MB's biography. She just wasn't with him long enough to include him in her memoirs.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 15:17
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort

 

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me the best and most informative books/sources for Edmund Tudor? I find him interesting and would like to investigate further.

Carol responds:

Supposedly, a Welsh bard named Lewys Glyn Cothi or Llywelyn y Glyn wrote an elegy of him which you can probably find in the Welsh National Archives. Other than that, your best bet would probably be biographies of people associated with him: his mother, Catherine of Valois; his ward and child bride, Margaret Beaufort; and, of course, his son, Henry. There are colorful bits on his father, Owen, as well, like the story of the weeping woman who "kempt" (combed) the dead Owen's hair. But Edmund himself seems to be a less romantic figure.

Carol

Thank you, Carol. I'm doing my best to gather the necessary biographies, etc. All I have at present that has anything to say about him in particular is Halsted's bio of Margaret Beaufort, which is too flowery to be trusted about anything. I agree Edmund seems a less romantic figure, but he makes me curious all the same. His tomb at St. David's Cathedral is absolutely lovely, with a great brass, even if it is a copy. It's smaller (I think) than the one the Society would like for Richard, but very impressive all the same.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG/800px-Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG I'd just like to know more. Was he really a brute who bedded his little wife for the sake of it? Or was there more to it? If he was a brute, how awful that he should have such a beautiful last resting place.

Sandra


From: justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Carol responds:

Supposedly, a Welsh bard named Lewys Glyn Cothi or Llywelyn y Glyn wrote an elegy of him which you can probably find in the Welsh National Archives. Other than that, your best bet would probably be biographies of people associated with him: his mother, Catherine of Valois; his ward and child bride, Margaret Beaufort; and, of course, his son, Henry. There are colorful bits on his father, Owen, as well, like the story of the weeping woman who "kempt" (combed) the dead Owen's hair. But Edmund himself seems to be a less romantic figure.

Carol

Oops. Messed up. The url should be http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG/800px-Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG Sorry.

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort


Thank you, Carol. I'm doing my best to gather the necessary biographies, etc. All I have at present that has anything to say about him in particular is Halsted's bio of Margaret Beaufort, which is too flowery to be trusted about anything. I agree Edmund seems a less romantic figure, but he makes me curious all the same. His tomb at St. David's Cathedral is absolutely lovely, with a great brass, even if it is a copy. It's smaller (I think) than the one the Society would like for Richard, but very impressive all the same.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG/800px-Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG I'd just like to know more. Was he really a brute who bedded his little wife for the sake of it? Or was there more to it? If he was a brute, how awful that he should have such a beautiful last resting place.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:17 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Carol responds:

Supposedly, a Welsh bard named Lewys Glyn Cothi or Llywelyn y Glyn wrote an elegy of him which you can probably find in the Welsh National Archives. Other than that, your best bet would probably be biographies of people associated with him: his mother, Catherine of Valois; his ward and child bride, Margaret Beaufort; and, of course, his son, Henry. There are colorful bits on his father, Owen, as well, like the story of the weeping woman who "kempt" (combed) the dead Owen's hair. But Edmund himself seems to be a less romantic figure.

Carol

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Carol. I’m doing my best to gather the necessary biographies, etc. All I have at present that has anything to say about him in particular is Halsted’s bio of Margaret Beaufort, which is too flowery to be trusted about anything. I agree Edmund seems a less romantic figure, but he makes me curious all the same. His tomb at St. David’s Cathedral is absolutely lovely, with a great brass, even if it is a copy. It’s smaller (I think) than the one the Society would like for Richard, but very impressive all the same.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG/800px-Tomb_of_Edmund_Tudor.JPG I’d just like to know more. Was he really a brute who bedded his little wife for the sake of it? Or was there more to it? If he was a brute, how awful that he should have such a beautiful last resting place.

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Sorry to be so little help. Your link doesn't work because it includes "same." (good old Yahoo), but I deleted "same." from the URL and saw the photo, which I agree is beautiful. Makes me wonder who paid for that monument--brother Jasper?

Halsted may be flowery, in the style of her day, but her Richard III is well-researched and deserves more credit than it usually receives. (I haven't read her bio of MB.) It's odd that Halsted would also choose one of Richard's enemies as a subject for biography. I wouldn't dismiss what she says, but I would definitely bear in mind limitations on and the biases of the sources available to her.

Carol