Hicks
Hicks
especially from the point of view of Hicks having made a pretty good living
out of Richard. He continues with his anti Richard stance, but like the
dreaded Weir uses phrases like Œalmost certain¹ a typical oxymoronic turn of
phrase used by those who have no facts to back up their theories with!
If you haven¹t bought this rather, in my opinion, expensive magazine
(UKP3.25) don¹t bother.
Paul
Hicks
- Margaret
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:35:34 +0100
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
Subject: Re: False Fleeting Perjured Clarence
Hicks is rabidly anti Richard these days and Clarence has always been
his hero, so I never expected to see anything anti George from his
pen. Yes, his book is dry. It was his final thesis at University I
believe, where Charles Ross was his tutor and at the time living
hero. At time the book looks like a thesis, and Ross influence is clear.
Paul
On Aug 7, 2005, at 06:12, meandermay wrote:
> If you have not already done so, I recommend Clarence Hicks' book
> "False Fleeting
> Perjured Clarence." It is very dry, but packed full of the kind of
> information you are
> looking for. He contends that Clarence was not such a rotten guy
> as history has
> made him, a good landlord and patron, and there is no record that
> he was mean to
> his wife or a drunk. He contends that there is no evidence of any
> Clarence bastards or
> mistresses.
>
> I share your dislike of the way many novelists treat George.
>
> - Margaret
>
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: Hicks
was writing his Edward IV. However, Ross is pretty scathing about
Clarence, so presumably Hicks didn't get his bias from him.
Hicks
Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we judge it today is absolutely irrelavent.
2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it makes me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I have read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two men in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is very jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked up his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes to Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often outright hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was not Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot, no?)
- MargaretA
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...>
Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
about another comment that the author made.
I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
In seriousness, though, Hicks is very good at providing an overview of
fifteenth century philosophical, religious, anthropological and
sociological structures: Have read his /*Richard III*/ and /*Wars of the
Roses*. /Am currently reading his / *English Political Culture in the
Fifteenth Century. */Have quite enjoyed his 'big picture' approach in
all three books.
Margaret Anderson wrote:
> Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone else,
> "having not read the book..."
> Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th century
> behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and culturally
> acceptable by the standards of that time. How we judge it today is
> absolutely irrelavent.
> 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that marriage
> had been consummated is also irrelavent.
>
> If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it makes me
> wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I have read is
> Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two men in that
> publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is very jaundiced.
> It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked up his subsequent
> works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes to Richard by any
> means, but Hicks is not objective, often outright hostile and
> attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was not Charles Ross
> his mentor as a student? That would explain lot, no?)
> - MargaretA
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...>
> Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
>
> Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
> about another comment that the author made.
>
> I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
> yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
> having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
> be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: Hicks
out to be quite anti-Ricardian, as was his "Edward V" tome.
We expect trouble from him, almost as much as we do from Seward, Weir
or Starkey. In the latter's case, there are some other writers on the
Tudor era (e.g. Neville Williams, Paul Johnson) who can write well
without being so partisan.
Strangely enough, when I asked Professor Hicks a question for my
Thomas Stafford article, he was very helpful, obviously unaware that
I was a Group Chairman at the time!
--- In , Margaret Anderson
<megander@...> wrote:
>
> Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone
else, "having not read the book..."
> Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we judge it
today is absolutely irrelavent.
> 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
>
> If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it makes
me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I have
read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two men in
that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is very
jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked up
his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes to
Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often outright
hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was not
Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot, no?)
> - MargaretA
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...>
> Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
>
> Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my
thoughts
> about another comment that the author made.
>
> I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
> yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like
Richard
> having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
> be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
years younger than Richard. Marriage probably took place in 1472.
Facts Michael please. Check them!
And no, he doesn't like Richard at all.
Paul
On 18 Feb 2006, at 15:18, Margaret Anderson wrote:
> Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone else,
> "having not read the book..."
> Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
> century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
> culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we judge
> it today is absolutely irrelavent.
> 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
> marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
>
> If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it makes
> me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I have
> read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two men
> in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is very
> jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked up
> his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes to
> Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often outright
> hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was not
> Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot, no?)
> - MargaretA
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...>
> Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
>
> Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
> about another comment that the author made.
>
> I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
> yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
> having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
> be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
>
> And of course she was 16 not 15. June 11th 1456. So she was only 4
> years younger than Richard. Marriage probably took place in 1472.
> Facts Michael please. Check them!
> And no, he doesn't like Richard at all.
> Paul
>
Some more young brides spring to mind:
Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his second wife Margaret also (at
the time of his 2nd marriage he was about 60! (Incidently this marriage would seemed to
have been successful with children. Margaret never married after Edwards death.
Richard ll - Anne of Bohemia was about 15/16 - his second wife was even younger than
this.
Henry Tudors mother Margaret was aged either 13 or 16 (according to what book you are
reading) when he was born.
Two hundred years later Charles lst wife Henrietta Maria was 16.
I could go on.
But are we absolutely sure this is what Hicks is saying - because it has also been said that
he had described Anne as wanting to marry Richard for his wealth and being a slapper! He
cant have it both ways!
I find it hard to believe an historian of some repute could really be writing such garbage as
this! I am loath to part with my money to line this mans pockets if he churn out stuff like
this. Have to wait until it gets to the libraries.
Eileen
>
> On 18 Feb 2006, at 15:18, Margaret Anderson wrote:
>
> > Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone else,
> > "having not read the book..."
> > Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> > 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
> > century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
> > culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we judge
> > it today is absolutely irrelavent.
> > 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
> > marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
> >
> > If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it makes
> > me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I have
> > read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two men
> > in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is very
> > jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked up
> > his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes to
> > Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often outright
> > hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was not
> > Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot, no?)
> > - MargaretA
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > __
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > __
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> > From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...>
> > Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
> >
> > Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
> > about another comment that the author made.
> >
> > I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
> > yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
> > having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
> > be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
was flipping through, not the cover blurb. I wish I had the book in
front of me because I'm now starting to doubt myself, but I'm sure I
wouldn't have imagined it.
I'm also sure that I read a paragraph about Anne marrying Gloucester
that implied that she may have got used to having regular sex and
would find widowhood hard. It also said something like, was Anne the
sort of girl who was led astray by materialism and sexuality, as the
tracts of good behaviour warned against?.
I'm pretty sure in his summing up that Hicks said that Anne had had
an eventful life that included sex and high society parties.
I think the only answer to all this is for someone to buy the book.
(I admit though that the "money-grabbing slapper" comment was me,
being somewhat flippant.)
I hope I have got hold of the right end of the stick in all this.
Joanne
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > And of course she was 16 not 15. June 11th 1456. So she was only
4
> > years younger than Richard. Marriage probably took place in 1472.
> > Facts Michael please. Check them!
> > And no, he doesn't like Richard at all.
> > Paul
> >
>
> Some more young brides spring to mind:
>
> Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
second wife Margaret also (at
> the time of his 2nd marriage he was about 60! (Incidently this
marriage would seemed to
> have been successful with children. Margaret never married after
Edwards death.
> Richard ll - Anne of Bohemia was about 15/16 - his second wife was
even younger than
> this.
> Henry Tudors mother Margaret was aged either 13 or 16 (according to
what book you are
> reading) when he was born.
> Two hundred years later Charles lst wife Henrietta Maria was 16.
> I could go on.
>
> But are we absolutely sure this is what Hicks is saying - because
it has also been said that
> he had described Anne as wanting to marry Richard for his wealth
and being a slapper! He
> cant have it both ways!
>
> I find it hard to believe an historian of some repute could really
be writing such garbage as
> this! I am loath to part with my money to line this mans pockets
if he churn out stuff like
> this. Have to wait until it gets to the libraries.
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > On 18 Feb 2006, at 15:18, Margaret Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone
else,
> > > "having not read the book..."
> > > Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> > > 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
> > > century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
> > > culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we
judge
> > > it today is absolutely irrelavent.
> > > 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
> > > marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
> > >
> > > If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it
makes
> > > me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I
have
> > > read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two
men
> > > in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is
very
> > > jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked
up
> > > his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes
to
> > > Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often
outright
> > > hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was
not
> > > Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot,
no?)
> > > - MargaretA
> > >
> > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > __
> > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > __
> > >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> > > From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@>
> > > Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
> > >
> > > Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my
thoughts
> > > about another comment that the author made.
> > >
> > > I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the
book
> > > yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like
Richard
> > > having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today
would
> > > be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
>
> The reference to the Sex offenders register was part of the text as I
> was flipping through, not the cover blurb. I wish I had the book in
> front of me because I'm now starting to doubt myself, but I'm sure I
> wouldn't have imagined it.
-----------
Joanne - I do apologise if you think Im doubting you - in fact I think you have probably
got it about right - it is just that I am amazed Hicks could come out with tripe like this
although some one posted a long time ago that Hicks was anti-Richard. Myself I have
never read one of his books & I cant say I want to.
>
> I'm also sure that I read a paragraph about Anne marrying Gloucester
> that implied that she may have got used to having regular sex and
> would find widowhood hard.
I think this is kind of shocking - what kind of historian makes statement like this. He is
saying that Anne married Richard because she could not do without sex!!!! In fact it has
been suggested that the marriage, between Anne and Edward, maybe was not
consummated - his mother wanting to be abolutely sure everything was how it should be.
Another thing noone will never know for sure
Eileen
It also said something like, was Anne the
> sort of girl who was led astray by materialism and sexuality, as the
> tracts of good behaviour warned against?.
>
> I'm pretty sure in his summing up that Hicks said that Anne had had
> an eventful life that included sex and high society parties.
>
> I think the only answer to all this is for someone to buy the book.
>
> (I admit though that the "money-grabbing slapper" comment was me,
> being somewhat flippant.)
>
> I hope I have got hold of the right end of the stick in all this.
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And of course she was 16 not 15. June 11th 1456. So she was only
> 4
> > > years younger than Richard. Marriage probably took place in 1472.
> > > Facts Michael please. Check them!
> > > And no, he doesn't like Richard at all.
> > > Paul
> > >
> >
> > Some more young brides spring to mind:
> >
> > Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
> second wife Margaret also (at
> > the time of his 2nd marriage he was about 60! (Incidently this
> marriage would seemed to
> > have been successful with children. Margaret never married after
> Edwards death.
> > Richard ll - Anne of Bohemia was about 15/16 - his second wife was
> even younger than
> > this.
> > Henry Tudors mother Margaret was aged either 13 or 16 (according to
> what book you are
> > reading) when he was born.
> > Two hundred years later Charles lst wife Henrietta Maria was 16.
> > I could go on.
> >
> > But are we absolutely sure this is what Hicks is saying - because
> it has also been said that
> > he had described Anne as wanting to marry Richard for his wealth
> and being a slapper! He
> > cant have it both ways!
> >
> > I find it hard to believe an historian of some repute could really
> be writing such garbage as
> > this! I am loath to part with my money to line this mans pockets
> if he churn out stuff like
> > this. Have to wait until it gets to the libraries.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 18 Feb 2006, at 15:18, Margaret Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone
> else,
> > > > "having not read the book..."
> > > > Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> > > > 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
> > > > century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
> > > > culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we
> judge
> > > > it today is absolutely irrelavent.
> > > > 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
> > > > marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
> > > >
> > > > If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it
> makes
> > > > me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I
> have
> > > > read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two
> men
> > > > in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is
> very
> > > > jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked
> up
> > > > his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes
> to
> > > > Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often
> outright
> > > > hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was
> not
> > > > Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot,
> no?)
> > > > - MargaretA
> > > >
> > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> > > > __
> > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> > > > __
> > > >
> > > > Message: 6
> > > > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> > > > From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@>
> > > > Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
> > > >
> > > > Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my
> thoughts
> > > > about another comment that the author made.
> > > >
> > > > I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the
> book
> > > > yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like
> Richard
> > > > having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today
> would
> > > > be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
<jsummerill@...> wrote:
>
> The reference to the Sex offenders register was part of the text as I
> was flipping through, not the cover blurb. I wish I had the book in
> front of me because I'm now starting to doubt myself, but I'm sure I
> wouldn't have imagined it.
>
> I'm also sure that I read a paragraph about Anne marrying Gloucester
> that implied that she may have got used to having regular sex and
> would find widowhood hard. It also said something like, was Anne the
> sort of girl who was led astray by materialism and sexuality, as the
> tracts of good behaviour warned against?.
And he knows this how? I don't recall any historical facts that would
substantiate the materialism business, except maybe that she had a
lovely gown at some affairs of state. As you'd expect a queen to
have...in fact much is made of Elizabeth of York having a very similar
one. The second part, her being led astray by sexuality and having a
carnal appetite...he must be chaneling her ghost, to be that familiar
with her psyche.
Stuff like that says a whale of a lot more about the biographer than
about the subject.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> Some more young brides spring to mind:
>
> Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
second wife Margaret also (at
> the time of his 2nd marriage he was about 60! (Incidently this
marriage would seemed to
> have been successful with children. Margaret never married after
Edwards death.
> Richard ll - Anne of Bohemia was about 15/16 - his second wife was
even younger than
> this.
> Henry Tudors mother Margaret was aged either 13 or 16 (according to
what book you are
> reading) when he was born.
> Two hundred years later Charles lst wife Henrietta Maria was 16.
> I could go on.
From the opposite angle, what would the easily-shocked M Hicks make
of a woman who was married at 13 by her father's deathbed command,
found her husband boring but had two children by him, was suspected
of having an affair with her own uncle, finally obtained an
annullment from her husband, and within weeks had managed to get
literally swept off her 26-year-old feet by a hot-blooded teenager
whose father had allegedly been among her lovers, and married him,
only to spend the rest of her life, between having 12 children by
him, causing trouble?
The bards loved it and the story resonates to this day: Eleanor of
Aquitain and Henry II.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
i used hicks as author and anne as title. there are several copies available.
why tithe to hicks via royalties?
what i find interesting is some of the used copies are selling for more than a new copy.
roslyn
jotwo2003 <jsummerill@...> wrote:
The reference to the Sex offenders register was part of the text as I
was flipping through, not the cover blurb. I wish I had the book in
front of me because I'm now starting to doubt myself, but I'm sure I
wouldn't have imagined it.
I'm also sure that I read a paragraph about Anne marrying Gloucester
that implied that she may have got used to having regular sex and
would find widowhood hard. It also said something like, was Anne the
sort of girl who was led astray by materialism and sexuality, as the
tracts of good behaviour warned against?.
I'm pretty sure in his summing up that Hicks said that Anne had had
an eventful life that included sex and high society parties.
I think the only answer to all this is for someone to buy the book.
(I admit though that the "money-grabbing slapper" comment was me,
being somewhat flippant.)
I hope I have got hold of the right end of the stick in all this.
Joanne
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > And of course she was 16 not 15. June 11th 1456. So she was only
4
> > years younger than Richard. Marriage probably took place in 1472.
> > Facts Michael please. Check them!
> > And no, he doesn't like Richard at all.
> > Paul
> >
>
> Some more young brides spring to mind:
>
> Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
second wife Margaret also (at
> the time of his 2nd marriage he was about 60! (Incidently this
marriage would seemed to
> have been successful with children. Margaret never married after
Edwards death.
> Richard ll - Anne of Bohemia was about 15/16 - his second wife was
even younger than
> this.
> Henry Tudors mother Margaret was aged either 13 or 16 (according to
what book you are
> reading) when he was born.
> Two hundred years later Charles lst wife Henrietta Maria was 16.
> I could go on.
>
> But are we absolutely sure this is what Hicks is saying - because
it has also been said that
> he had described Anne as wanting to marry Richard for his wealth
and being a slapper! He
> cant have it both ways!
>
> I find it hard to believe an historian of some repute could really
be writing such garbage as
> this! I am loath to part with my money to line this mans pockets
if he churn out stuff like
> this. Have to wait until it gets to the libraries.
> Eileen
>
>
> >
> > On 18 Feb 2006, at 15:18, Margaret Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Will preface my statements with the same caution as everyone
else,
> > > "having not read the book..."
> > > Re: Hicks and Richard's indecent marriage to a 15 year old girl:
> > > 1. As a historian, he ought to know better than to judge 15th
> > > century behavior by 21st century standards! It was legal and
> > > culturally acceptable by the standards of that time. How we
judge
> > > it today is absolutely irrelavent.
> > > 2. Anne Neville had already been married! Whether or not that
> > > marriage had been consummated is also irrelavent.
> > >
> > > If this snippet is indeed accurate of the tone of the book it
makes
> > > me wonder too if Hicks hates Richard. The only book of his I
have
> > > read is Clarence, but comparing the way he approaches the two
men
> > > in that publication makes it clear that his view of Richard is
very
> > > jaundiced. It is perhaps for that very reason I have not picked
up
> > > his subsequent works. I do not mind objectivity when it comes
to
> > > Richard by any means, but Hicks is not objective, often
outright
> > > hostile and attributes the worst possible motives to him. (Was
not
> > > Charles Ross his mentor as a student? That would explain lot,
no?)
> > > - MargaretA
> > >
> > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > __
> > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > __
> > >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:30:29 -0000
> > > From: "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@>
> > > Subject: Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
> > >
> > > Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my
thoughts
> > > about another comment that the author made.
> > >
> > > I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the
book
> > > yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like
Richard
> > > having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today
would
> > > be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
I am reminded of the furore which occurred a few years ago when the judge sentencing a man for sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl was quoted as saying that the girl was 'not entirely an angel'. What he actually said was (this is a paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words) that the girl was perhaps not entirely an angel but that was no excuse for the defendant's actions towards her.
Richard II's second wife, Isabella of Valois, was seven at their marriage and 10 at his deposition, but there is no suggestion in any of the contemporary accounts that he slept with her. She married again after his death and died in childbirth in 1406 when she was 17.
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
Ann
Child "marriages" were quite commonplace among the nobility, but, except where an heiress was involved (eg Mary de Bohun, Margaret Beaufort) there was not normally an early consummation. I suspect, certainly in the later middle ages where I have done most of my research, that the average age of consummation was when the bride was about 16-18. The practical reasons for this are pretty obvious, also I think most parents were savvy enough to realise that very early childbirth was not a good thing.
Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville are maybe a case in point - as Cecily didn't have her first child until she was about 24, it suggests consummation was relatively late...
Brian
Re: Hicks
Some more young brides spring to mind:
Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his second
wife Margaret also
Ann:
It's years ago and I can't recall the source, but someone did a
study of the wards of Edward's mother, Eleanor of Provence. The records
indicated that the girls were not married until they turned sixteen. Of
course, she had many wards, so the person who made the study concluded
that the minimum age was probably policy rather than coincidence.
L.P.H.,
Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
The engaged couple appeared to be somewhat stupefied. But they would
get over it. ~ TOMB OF THE GOLDEN BIRD, page 345
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Hicks
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen:
> Some more young brides spring to mind:
>
> Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
second
> wife Margaret also
>
> Ann:
> It's years ago and I can't recall the source, but someone did
a
> study of the wards of Edward's mother, Eleanor of Provence. The
records
> indicated that the girls were not married until they turned
sixteen. Of
> course, she had many wards, so the person who made the study
concluded
> that the minimum age was probably policy rather than coincidence.
I recall reading in The King's Mother (Jones and Underwood) a propos
of the early consummation of Margaret Beaufort's marriage, that in
cases of child marriage it was often written into the contract that
consummation should not take place until the girl was fourteen. This
is interesting, as it shows that the legal age of consent (12 was not
generally considered decent, but was more there to enable young
pregnant girls to marry.
There are no end of marriages of 14/15 year old aristocratic girls in
the 15th century. I'd say 14-16 was probably the most normal age
amongst the upper classes.
Of course our current view (in the UK at any rate) that the 16th
birthday is the magic age for a girl's being old enough for sex is
based on the fact that this happens at the moment to be both the
legal age of consent and the statutory school leaving age.
In an era which liked to divide things by the magic number seven,
fourteen seems to have appeared a more natural milestone. It was also
the generally accepted age for full criminal responsibility. And then
at 21 you were old enough to take full control of your own financial
and legal affairs. I have even seen wills where the father stipulates
that his sons must be 28 before they can receive their legacies.
Besides, by the time Richard and Anne's dispensation arrived in
England it would surely have been at least late May 1472 and very
close to Anne's sixteenth birthday, which was 10th June.
Does anybody know roughly how long the journey from Rome to England
generally took?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks
of the early consummation of Margaret Beaufort's marriage, that in
cases of child marriage it was often written into the contract that
consummation should not take place until the girl was fourteen. This
is interesting, as it shows that the legal age of consent (12 was not
generally considered decent, but was more there to enable young
pregnant girls to marry.
There are no end of marriages of 14/15 year old aristocratic girls in
the 15th century. I'd say 14-16 was probably the most normal age
amongst the upper classes.
Of course our current view (in the UK at any rate) that the 16th
birthday is the magic age for a girl's being old enough for sex is
based on the fact that this happens at the moment to be both the
legal age of consent and the statutory school leaving age.
In an era which liked to divide things by the magic number seven,
fourteen seems to have appeared a more natural milestone. It was also
the generally accepted age for full criminal responsibility. And then
at 21 you were old enough to take full control of your own financial
and legal affairs. I have even seen wills where the father stipulates
that his sons must be 28 before they can receive their legacies.
Interstingly, the newspapers reported in the last few days that the extremely rich Lord King of Wartnaby, who died a few months ago, stipulated that his son should come into his inheritance at 35. These days 21 or 25 is the norm - partly because the Trustee Act 1925 provides that an 'accumulation and maintenance trust', which is often created expressly in wills to provide for minor beneficiaries, may last for a maximum of 25 years.
Besides, by the time Richard and Anne's dispensation arrived in
England it would surely have been at least late May 1472 and very
close to Anne's sixteenth birthday, which was 10th June.
Does anybody know roughly how long the journey from Rome to England
generally took?
I can't remember the source but I did read somewhere that except in the depths of winter papal messengers reckoned on 8 weeks - 2 months for the round trip.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: Hicks
1254, and she was probably a bit younger (her date of isn't known).
I'm not sure when their first child was born, but I think 1264.
Edward's second marriage was in 1299, when he was 60, and his bride
was....a lot younger, somewhere between 17 and 20, probably.
Edward's son Edward II got married to Isabella of France in January
1308 when he was 23 and she was probably only 12, but they'd been
married for over 4 years by the time the future Edward III was
conceived (he was born November 1312). Edward II's three de Clare
nieces all got married at 13, but didn't conceive their first
children till they were 16 (possibly 15 in the case of the eldest de
Clare girl, Eleanor). This suggests to me that although royal and
aristocratic girls could get married at 12 or 13 in the 14th century,
the marriages weren't necessarily consummated until several years
later.
Cheers
Kathryn
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/
--- In , "Sharp, Ann \(CGT\)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen:
> Some more young brides spring to mind:
>
> Edward 1 - his first wife Eleanor of Castile was about 16, his
second
> wife Margaret also
>
> Ann:
> It's years ago and I can't recall the source, but someone did
a
> study of the wards of Edward's mother, Eleanor of Provence. The
records
> indicated that the girls were not married until they turned
sixteen. Of
> course, she had many wards, so the person who made the study
concluded
> that the minimum age was probably policy rather than coincidence.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
> axsc@...
> http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
> The engaged couple appeared to be somewhat stupefied. But they
would
> get over it. ~ TOMB OF THE GOLDEN BIRD, page 345
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Re: Hicks
--- In , "Kathryn"
<ulverstongirl@...> wrote:
>
> The future Edward I was 15 when he married Eleanor of Castile in
> 1254, and she was probably a bit younger (her date of isn't
known).
> I'm not sure when their first child was born, but I think 1264.
> Edward's second marriage was in 1299, when he was 60, and his bride
> was....a lot younger, somewhere between 17 and 20, probably.
> Edward's son Edward II got married to Isabella of France in January
> 1308 when he was 23 and she was probably only 12, but they'd been
> married for over 4 years by the time the future Edward III was
> conceived (he was born November 1312). Edward II's three de Clare
> nieces all got married at 13, but didn't conceive their first
> children till they were 16 (possibly 15 in the case of the eldest
de
> Clare girl, Eleanor). This suggests to me that although royal and
> aristocratic girls could get married at 12 or 13 in the 14th
century,
> the marriages weren't necessarily consummated until several years
> later.
>
> Cheers
> Kathryn
> http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks
brevity snip by roslyn
Besides, by the time Richard and Anne's dispensation arrived in
England it would surely have been at least late May 1472 and very
close to Anne's sixteenth birthday, which was 10th June.
Does anybody know roughly how long the journey from Rome to England
generally took?
I can't remember the source but I did read somewhere that except in the depths of winter papal messengers reckoned on 8 weeks - 2 months for the round trip.
Ann
i've read there was a pony express type relay, that could cover up to 200 miles per day in emergency situations in the era.
from my personal experience with horses. i know one can comfortably cover 50 miles a day in 8 hours, without a change of horse. this is at a walk or jog trot.
so, you would need to determine the distance from london to rome, as well as, how fast you wanted that dispensation...as to how long it would take to make a return trip.
remember..all the roads the romans built. the rider wasn't doing a cross country steeple chase..as all roads led to rome...but some went through "enemy/unfriendly territory".
i think you also might need to determine if the request for the dispensation went by land or sea.
does anyone know how long it took a ship to sail from england to italy in the 15thC?
roslyn
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
> so, you would need to determine the distance from london to rome,
as well as, how fast you wanted that dispensation...as to how long it
would take to make a return trip.
>
> remember..all the roads the romans built. the rider wasn't doing a
cross country steeple chase..as all roads led to rome...but some went
through "enemy/unfriendly territory".
>
> i think you also might need to determine if the request for the
dispensation went by land or sea.
>
> does anyone know how long it took a ship to sail from england to
italy in the 15thC?
Well, part of the journey would *have* to be by sea. since the Chunnel
was some centuries in the future. And the sea portion would depend a
great deal on the time of the year and the weather.
In her Niccolo series, Dorothy Dunnett, a meticulous researcher, has
the principles do a great deal of travelling by land and sea. Someone
familiar with her novels might be able to find out how long these
journeys took.
Katy
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks
was the mode a one-man with escort to hand deliver the documents, or was it a relay of trusted document delivery people?
without a doubt, there would be the crossing of the channel to get to mainland europe. followed by a cross country jaunt.
did they travel over the alps, or take a trip along the coast line of france into italy?
did they sail from the south of france to mainland italy. and then ride to rome?
did they sail down the thames and out..or did they ride to dover and get off at calais?
did they ride east to bristol and sail out from there, rounding thru gilbralter and off to italy.
again..it would depend upon how fast you wanted the dispensation, and how you travelled.
the distance between the two points hasn't changed over the centuries, just the typical mode of transportation and communication.
if by ship, was it a royal/private ship, or was a commercial ship?
were there regular vatican couriers? or did you send your own representative?
did you use a trade route, or was there a well travelled direct route over land?
were there treaties that enabled vatican communications to and from other countries ensuring embassadors/courriers could travel unmolested even when at war with one country or another?
there are a lot of factors as to the length of time the dispensation would have taken on the return trip. i've only listed those that immediately come to my mind.
it seems to me..the return trip could be as fast as a couple of weeks, or as slow as six months..it would all depend upon the authority and urgency of those making and receiving the request for the dispensation.
roslyn
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
> so, you would need to determine the distance from london to rome,
as well as, how fast you wanted that dispensation...as to how long it
would take to make a return trip.
>
> remember..all the roads the romans built. the rider wasn't doing a
cross country steeple chase..as all roads led to rome...but some went
through "enemy/unfriendly territory".
>
> i think you also might need to determine if the request for the
dispensation went by land or sea.
>
> does anyone know how long it took a ship to sail from england to
italy in the 15thC?
Well, part of the journey would *have* to be by sea. since the Chunnel
was some centuries in the future. And the sea portion would depend a
great deal on the time of the year and the weather.
In her Niccolo series, Dorothy Dunnett, a meticulous researcher, has
the principles do a great deal of travelling by land and sea. Someone
familiar with her novels might be able to find out how long these
journeys took.
Katy
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Hicks
the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where you will
find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of Hicks ghastly
theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
I do like this man's work and can't wait now for his full biography of
Richard due in the spring of next year.
Paul
--
Richard liveth yet
Re: Hicks
>
> For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book Richard III and
> the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where you will
> find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of Hicks ghastly
> theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who don't have a copy of the book yet?
Katy
Re: Hicks
I am not on my own computer at present and this one manages one message per
session, so slow it is driving me insane! I am caring for an accident prone
mother while my sister with slow computer is away.
But as soon as I can I'll put the quote up.
Paul
On 4/18/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book Richard III
> and
> > the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where you will
> > find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of Hicks
> ghastly
> > theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
>
>
> Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who don't have
> a copy of the book yet?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard liveth yet
Re: Hicks
David Hipshon "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
Hipshon writes:-
"Anne Neville was the daughter of Richard's cousin, but there was
nothing unseemly in that, despite one historian, with curious
devotion to the "evil Richard" myth, recently describing their
relationship as "incestuous, sinful, prohibited, deeply shocking and
probably incapable of being dispensed" (Michael Hicks 'Anne
Neville'). The fact that Anne's sister was married to Richard's
brother created a degree of affinity that was routinely dispensed
with. Describing them as 'siblings - in - law', a term presumably
invented for the sole purpose of suggesting that Richard was closer
to Anne than he actually was, is mere obfuscation. Marrying a brother-
in-law was fine, is fine, and had a long and distinguished line of
medieval precedents. Consanguinity, blood relations, were a different
matter, but Richard's kinship with Anne was also commonplace,
acceptable and in no way shocking to contemporaries. They were
cousins one removed. Only a pathological distortion of the facts
could create a sine out of a perfectly normal marriage. To give a
measure to the case,, none f Richard and Anne's various connections
would fit into any of the twenty five degrees of 'kindred and
affinity' that would require dispensation today. But for those
determined to render Richard in an exclusively negative light,
portraying his marriage as sinful makes sense."
The true nature of Croyland's anti Richard bias is joined on to this
when he quotes Croyland's tale of Richard's search for Anne with:-
"Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester so far
prevailed that he discovered the young lady in the city of London
disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed
to the sanctuary of St Martin's".
Hipshon continues:- "We not in passing the epithet 'craftiness'
creeping into descriptions of Richard's behaviour at an early stage.
Spotting one's brie-to-be dressed as a kitchen maid no doubt required
considerable craftiness and probably shocked contemporaries into the
bargains. Having craftily spied his sinful quarry, Richard had her
removed into the local brothel known as the sanctuary of St. Martin's!"
Love this man's work!
Paul
On 18 Apr 2009, at 21:55, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book
>> Richard III and
>> the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where
>> you will
>> find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of
>> Hicks ghastly
>> theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
>
>
> Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who
> don't have a copy of the book yet?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: Hicks
>
>
> Hipshon continues:- "We not in passing the epithet 'craftiness'
> creeping into descriptions of Richard's behaviour at an early stage.
> Spotting one's brie-to-be dressed as a kitchen maid no doubt required
> considerable craftiness and probably shocked contemporaries into the
> bargains. Having craftily spied his sinful quarry, Richard had her
> removed into the local brothel known as the sanctuary of St. Martin's!"
> Love this man's work!
> Paul
Take it out of that Hicks!!! mutter, mutter, you pathetic excuse of a "historian"..... (too bad he dont read his fan mail on this forum :0\..)
eileen
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2009, at 21:55, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book
> >> Richard III and
> >> the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where
> >> you will
> >> find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of
> >> Hicks ghastly
> >> theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
> >
> >
> > Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who
> > don't have a copy of the book yet?
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
Re: Hicks
Following on from my previous 'tirade' against Hick.....has anyone noticed....read any what you can call 'damn good read' books covering Richard et al (Maligned King, the Betrayal of Richard lll etc., and now Paul is recommending the Death of Chivilry) and they all come out on Richard's side. All the rubbish books (I know not how else to describe them) mainly those written by Hicks and his auntie (Joke) Weir all demonise him. Now has this anything to do with the fact that the books that exonerate Richard are those that have taken a huge amount of hard work and digging/delving etc., to get to the real facts (as much as is possible when covering the 15th century). Consider for example the amount of research etc., has gone into Annette Carsons book, mindboggling. Whereas how much research, real research has Hicks or Weir ever done. I dont think their research goes much beyond reading More's History of King Richard. And of course there is still always that old,old chestnut 'dem bones'. To them, the bones were found in the Tower of London, ergo they must be the missing Princes. No debate, end of. These people need to take a reality check if you ask me. Poor, very poor quality of so-called historians and bookwriting. Hicks in particularly should be hanging his head in shame...
eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Hipshon continues:- "We not in passing the epithet 'craftiness'
> > creeping into descriptions of Richard's behaviour at an early stage.
> > Spotting one's brie-to-be dressed as a kitchen maid no doubt required
> > considerable craftiness and probably shocked contemporaries into the
> > bargains. Having craftily spied his sinful quarry, Richard had her
> > removed into the local brothel known as the sanctuary of St. Martin's!"
> > Love this man's work!
> > Paul
>
> Take it out of that Hicks!!! mutter, mutter, you pathetic excuse of a "historian"..... (too bad he dont read his fan mail on this forum :0\..)
> eileen
>
> >
> >
> > On 18 Apr 2009, at 21:55, oregonkaty wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book
> > >> Richard III and
> > >> the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where
> > >> you will
> > >> find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of
> > >> Hicks ghastly
> > >> theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who
> > > don't have a copy of the book yet?
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard liveth yet
> >
>
Re: Hicks
say anything new about fat Harry - apart from the dreaming up 'his
mummy taught him to write' rubbish] has another go at Richard 'killed
his two nephews in the Tower' etc. Having been shown up in the Trial
that found Richard innocent cannot Starkey clearly cannot give it up
and takes any opportunity to have an unsubstantiated dig at a man he
knows nothing about beyond More's tale.
As you say, the best books about Richard are always the ones where
the writer has done an awful lot of digging and proper research.
Paul
On 21 Apr 2009, at 17:55, eileen wrote:
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Following on from my previous 'tirade' against Hick.....has anyone
> noticed....read any what you can call 'damn good read' books
> covering Richard et al (Maligned King, the Betrayal of Richard lll
> etc., and now Paul is recommending the Death of Chivilry) and they
> all come out on Richard's side. All the rubbish books (I know not
> how else to describe them) mainly those written by Hicks and his
> auntie (Joke) Weir all demonise him. Now has this anything to do
> with the fact that the books that exonerate Richard are those that
> have taken a huge amount of hard work and digging/delving etc., to
> get to the real facts (as much as is possible when covering the
> 15th century). Consider for example the amount of research etc.,
> has gone into Annette Carsons book, mindboggling. Whereas how much
> research, real research has Hicks or Weir ever done. I dont think
> their research goes much beyond reading More's History of King
> Richard. And of course there is still always that old,old chestnut
> 'dem bones'. To them, the bones were found in the Tower of
> London, ergo they must be the missing Princes. No debate, end of.
> These people need to take a reality check if you ask me. Poor,
> very poor quality of so-called historians and bookwriting. Hicks
> in particularly should be hanging his head in shame...
> eileen
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hipshon continues:- "We not in passing the epithet 'craftiness'
>>> creeping into descriptions of Richard's behaviour at an early stage.
>>> Spotting one's brie-to-be dressed as a kitchen maid no doubt
>>> required
>>> considerable craftiness and probably shocked contemporaries into the
>>> bargains. Having craftily spied his sinful quarry, Richard had her
>>> removed into the local brothel known as the sanctuary of St.
>>> Martin's!"
>>> Love this man's work!
>>> Paul
>>
>> Take it out of that Hicks!!! mutter, mutter, you pathetic excuse
>> of a "historian"..... (too bad he dont read his fan mail on this
>> forum :0\..)
>> eileen
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Apr 2009, at 21:55, oregonkaty wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For all those fortunate to have a copy of Hipshon's new book
>>>>> Richard III and
>>>>> the Death of Chivalry and need cheering up, go to page 155 where
>>>>> you will
>>>>> find the most wonderfullly intelligent and erudite put down of
>>>>> Hicks ghastly
>>>>> theories about Richard and Anne Neville's marriage!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you quote it here for the benefit of impatient people who
>>>> don't have a copy of the book yet?
>>>>
>>>> Katy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard liveth yet
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: New stuff on Henry (WAS Hicks)
>Agreed Eileen. Tv "historian" David Starkey in his new [if you can
>say anything new about fat Harry -
I recently read a newspaper article purporting to be about new
research, and I know no better than that, that Henry was knocked out
cold in a tournament when Anne was six or so months pregnant with
their second child. She miscarried 'from the shock', and his
behaviour altered significantly.
The theory is that he suffered brain damage and a personality change,
like people do who have hit their heads too hard.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html
Best wishes
Christine
Re: New stuff on Henry (WAS Hicks)
the man back in the 70s and the theories about his behavioural
changes due to his various accidents was current knowledge then.
Paul
On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:04, Christine H wrote:
> At 18:11 21/04/2009, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Agreed Eileen. Tv "historian" David Starkey in his new [if you can
>> say anything new about fat Harry -
>
> I recently read a newspaper article purporting to be about new
> research, and I know no better than that, that Henry was knocked out
> cold in a tournament when Anne was six or so months pregnant with
> their second child. She miscarried 'from the shock', and his
> behaviour altered significantly.
>
> The theory is that he suffered brain damage and a personality change,
> like people do who have hit their heads too hard.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-
> accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: New stuff on Henry (WAS Hicks)
Thanks for the link Christine. I must say though, it is well known that the latter years of Henry's life, with his suffering caused from the leg ulcers alone, would have been pretty tough going for those around him. Chronic pain can make even the nicest of people cranky. If that is true he suffered from migraines as well he must have been a complete nightmare. Who would have wanted to be in Catherine Howards shoes? However I do feel though that the young Henry was a nasty piece of work long before he fell of his horse and banged his pate. Witness his treatment of Katherine of Aragon and their daughter Mary. Henry was behind the dissolution of the monasterys. This was the act of an absolute tyrant, well to my mind anyway.
On the whole though history has been kind to Henry. He is perceived as 'Bluff King Hal' and a bit of a lad (always remembered by the masses for his 6 wives). Ironic really.
Eileen
>
> At 18:11 21/04/2009, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >Agreed Eileen. Tv "historian" David Starkey in his new [if you can
> >say anything new about fat Harry -
>
> I recently read a newspaper article purporting to be about new
> research, and I know no better than that, that Henry was knocked out
> cold in a tournament when Anne was six or so months pregnant with
> their second child. She miscarried 'from the shock', and his
> behaviour altered significantly.
>
> The theory is that he suffered brain damage and a personality change,
> like people do who have hit their heads too hard.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
Re: New stuff on Henry (WAS Hicks)
I saw it in an exhibit of English portraits that covered the Renaissance to the 21st century.
The National Gallery portrait of Richard III was just a couple of spaces away on the same wall of the gallery. I walked back and forth between them. The contrast between the two faces and their undeserved reputations still gives me pause.
Marion
Hicks
with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir things up
again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still referred to as
"those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent newspaper, could be
those of one of many victims of the Wars of the Roses. DNA testing and
radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to prove the case".
Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine him as an expert
in a murder case? few criminals would get convicted if DNA evidence is
unreliable. All others everywhere say that you cannot argue with DNA.
Not Hicks.
Wish he'd shut up and get back in his prejudiced box!
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Hicks
something? The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Hicks
What makes it even more odd is, why did he wait so long to say
something?
The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why
didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first
presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things
lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir
things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still
referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent
newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the
Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to
prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine
him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get
convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that
you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get
back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard
Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups
Links
>
>
>
Re: Hicks
Hmm. A new book by Hicks would explain his timing...
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Friday, March 28, 2014 9:26 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
New book in the offing....? =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:18 PM To: Subject: Re: Hicks What makes it even more odd is, why did he wait so long to say
something? The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Hicks
What makes it even more odd is, why did he wait so long to say
something?
The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why
didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first
presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things
lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir
things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still
referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent
newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the
Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to
prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine
him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get
convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that
you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get
back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard
Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups
Links
>
>
>
Re: Hicks
New book in the offing....? =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:18 PM To: Subject: Re: Hicks
What makes it even more odd is, why did he wait so long to say
something?
The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why
didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first
presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale
wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things
lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir
things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still
referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent
newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the
Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to
prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine
him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get
convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that
you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get
back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard
Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups
Links
>
>
>
Hicks
Re: Hicks
On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
Judy wrote: "Sandra, Hmm. A new book by Hicks would explain his timing..." Or his lateest manuscript being rebuffed by a publisher... Doug (who likes the way one can convey so much meaning, without speaking or writing, with those three little dots!)
Re: Hicks
I really think Professor Hicks is feeling totally undermined. He has built his life, his work, and his reputation on his view of Richard.
He is the academic, we are romantic amateurs. He knew the truth, the society members were deluded.
Only what has actually come to pass has proved him to be overwhelmingly wrong.
He has a great deal to lose here, and he doesn't like it.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Hicks
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 4:59:23 PM
Judy wrote: "Sandra, Hmm. A new book by Hicks would explain his timing..." Or his lateest manuscript being rebuffed by a publisher... Doug (who likes the way one can convey so much meaning, without speaking or writing, with those three little dots!)
Re: Hicks
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:25 AM, SandraMachin wrote:
New book in the offing....? =^..^= From: Gilda FeltSent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: Hicks
What makes it even more odd is, why did he wait so long to say
something? The information was given out a long time ago, so why say
something now? Why didn't he state his concerns when the news was
first presented?
Gilda
On Mar 28, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Michael Hicks has clearly been feeling left out of things lately, so
> with his usual bias jumps on the Ricardian band wagon to stir things
> up
> again by stating the bones found in Leicester, still referred to as
> "those of the hunchbacked king" by the Independent newspaper, could be
> those of one of many victims of the Wars of the Roses. DNA testing and
> radio carbon dating "could not be relied upon to prove the case".
> Hello? What world does Professor Hicks live in? Imagine him as an
> expert
> in a murder case? few criminals would get convicted if DNA evidence is
> unreliable. All others everywhere say that you cannot argue with DNA.
> Not Hicks.
> Wish he'd shut up and get back in his prejudiced box!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Hicks
Ricardians who want to demonstrate that Hicks lacks credibility and professionalism can benefit from reading just 5 pages of Warwick the Kingmaker (pp. 24-29) which he published in 1998.
He knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings at least 7 years before he published his unprofessional, tabloid-style criticisms in Anne Neville, queen to Richard III. But he published 200+ pages of smoggy, inaccurate tangles of insubordinate clauses and prepositional phrases--before telling his readers that he really hadn't added anything to knowledge about Anne Neville and her times. How contemptuous of readers and his subject matter can he get?
The contradiction between Hicks' description of the double marriage in Warwick the Kingmaker and his derogatory treatment of Richard and Anne should discredit any claims he makes. I hope Ricardians point that out early and often.
Marion
Re: Hicks
It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: phaecilia@... <phaecilia@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 8:23:32 PM
Ricardians who want to demonstrate that Hicks lacks credibility and professionalism can benefit from reading just 5 pages of Warwick the Kingmaker (pp. 24-29) which he published in 1998.
He knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings at least 7 years before he published his unprofessional, tabloid-style criticisms in Anne Neville, queen to Richard III. But he published 200+ pages of smoggy, inaccurate tangles of insubordinate clauses and prepositional phrases--before telling his readers that he really hadn't added anything to knowledge about Anne Neville and her times. How contemptuous of readers and his subject matter can he get?
The contradiction between Hicks' description of the double marriage in Warwick the Kingmaker and his derogatory treatment of Richard and Anne should discredit any claims he makes. I hope Ricardians point that out early and often.
Marion
Re: Hicks
Shouldn’t take long.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: 29 March 2014 21:15
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: phaecilia@... <phaecilia@...>;
To: < >;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
Sent: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 8:23:32 PM
Ricardians who want to demonstrate that Hicks lacks credibility and professionalism can benefit from reading just 5 pages of Warwick the Kingmaker (pp. 24-29) which he published in 1998.
He knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings at least 7 years before he published his unprofessional, tabloid-style criticisms in Anne Neville, queen to Richard III. But he published 200+ pages of smoggy, inaccurate tangles of insubordinate clauses and prepositional phrases--before telling his readers that he really hadn't added anything to knowledge about Anne Neville and her times. How contemptuous of readers and his subject matter can he get?
The contradiction between Hicks' description of the double marriage in Warwick the Kingmaker and his derogatory treatment of Richard and Anne should discredit any claims he makes. I hope Ricardians point that out early and often.
Marion
Re: Hicks
It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: phaecilia@... <phaecilia@...>;To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 8:23:32 PM
Ricardians who want to demonstrate that Hicks lacks credibility and professionalism can benefit from reading just 5 pages of Warwick the Kingmaker (pp. 24-29) which he published in 1998.
He knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings at least 7 years before he published his unprofessional, tabloid-style criticisms in Anne Neville, queen to Richard III. But he published 200+ pages of smoggy, inaccurate tangles of insubordinate clauses and prepositional phrases--before telling his readers that he really hadn't added anything to knowledge about Anne Neville and her times. How contemptuous of readers and his subject matter can he get?
The contradiction between Hicks' description of the double marriage in Warwick the Kingmaker and his derogatory treatment of Richard and Anne should discredit any claims he makes. I hope Ricardians point that out early and often.
Marion
Re: Hicks
Agreed, Jess. I do have a small scrap of paper somewhere... Sandra =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:15 PM To: Subject: Re: Hicks
It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: phaecilia@... <phaecilia@...>;To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 8:23:32 PM
Ricardians who want to demonstrate that Hicks lacks credibility and professionalism can benefit from reading just 5 pages of Warwick the Kingmaker (pp. 24-29) which he published in 1998.
He knew there was nothing wrong with double marriages between siblings at least 7 years before he published his unprofessional, tabloid-style criticisms in Anne Neville, queen to Richard III. But he published 200+ pages of smoggy, inaccurate tangles of insubordinate clauses and prepositional phrases--before telling his readers that he really hadn't added anything to knowledge about Anne Neville and her times. How contemptuous of readers and his subject matter can he get?
The contradiction between Hicks' description of the double marriage in Warwick the Kingmaker and his derogatory treatment of Richard and Anne should discredit any claims he makes. I hope Ricardians point that out early and often.
Marion
Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
You then go back another generation, daughter to mother and down again along all female lines. You have to repeat this ad infinitum. Because, even if you hit an empty generation with no more qualifying descendants, that person must have a mother so you have to keep going back and down again as far as you can.
This is a practically impossible task.
In Richard's particular case, we have a major problem - I am not sure if anyone knows who Catherine de Roët's mother was.
However, we are helped by the fact she probably came from the Hainault area. But if she shared the same m-DNA as Phillippa, we have a real problem.
That said, I think that bearing in mind all the other evidence, it appears that the remains are probably Richard's but the DNA evidence may simply be no more powerful than 'not inconsistent with' that identification.
Kind regards
David
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 4:08:19 PM
I really think Professor Hicks is feeling totally undermined. He has built his life, his work, and his reputation on his view of Richard.
He is the academic, we are romantic amateurs. He knew the truth, the society members were deluded.
Only what has actually come to pass has proved him to be overwhelmingly wrong.
He has a great deal to lose here, and he doesn't like it.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Hicks
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 4:59:23 PM
Judy wrote: "Sandra, Hmm. A new book by Hicks would explain his timing..." Or his lateest manuscript being rebuffed by a publisher... Doug (who likes the way one can convey so much meaning, without speaking or writing, with those three little dots!)
Re: Hicks
The two de Roets probably were sisters but that can be confirmed by comparing their descendants’ mtDNA.
Many of Catherine’s mt descendants have a known burial place elsewhere, died at the wrong age or in the wrong era, were female, were moved elsewhere, had the wrong injuries, didn’t have scoliosis or died elsewhere. The dead of Wakefield , St. Alban’s or Tewkesbury would not be buried in the ( Leicester ) Greyfriars, an organisation with family links to Richard, whilst these remains were in the choir (as contemporaneously recorded).
Richard may be the only person left.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: 28 March 2014 20:50
To:
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Hicks
On the subject of
Richard's mitochondrial DNA, Professor Hicks is dramatically understating the
number of individuals who might share the same sequence. To establish the
list you have to go back from his mother to her mother and then down to all
descendants in the female line - stopping at, but including each male (who
will share the DNA but not pass it on).
You then go back another generation, daughter to mother and down again along
all female lines. You have to repeat this ad infinitum. Because, even if you
hit an empty generation with no more qualifying descendants, that person must
have a mother so you have to keep going back and down again as far as you
can.
This is a practically impossible task.
In Richard's particular case, we have a major problem - I am not sure if
anyone knows who Catherine de Roët's mother was.
However, we are helped by the fact she probably came from the Hainault area.
But if she shared the same m-DNA as Phillippa, we have a real problem.
That said, I think that bearing in mind all the other evidence, it appears
that the remains are probably Richard's but the DNA evidence may simply be no
more powerful than 'not inconsistent with' that identification.
Kind regards
David
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>;
To:
< >;
Cc: Doug Stamate
<destama@...>;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 4:08:19 PM
I
really think Professor Hicks is feeling totally undermined. He has built
his life, his work, and his reputation on his view of Richard.
He is the academic, we are romantic amateurs. He knew the truth, the
society members were deluded.
Only what has actually come to pass has proved him to be overwhelmingly
wrong.
He has a great deal to lose here, and he doesn't like it.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
<destama@...>;
To: < >;
Cc: Doug Stamate
<destama@...>;
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 4:59:23
PM
Judy wrote:
"Sandra,
Hmm. A new book by Hicks would explain his timing..."
Or his lateest manuscript being rebuffed by a publisher...
Doug
(who likes the way one can convey so much meaning, without speaking or writing, with those three little dots!)
Re: Hicks
Jess wrote :
"It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned."
Carol responds:
His birth and death dates and the names of his family members?
Carol
Re: Hicks
That is why I think his nose has been put out of joint, as they say.
Hicks has been regarded over the years as one of the foremost academic experts on Richard, but now it is very difficult to take him seriously because he has been proved wrong on so many occasions by those he sought to ridicule and despise.
A good historian should be objective and as unbiased as he/she can manage.
Hicks hasn't been able to do this and now it is coming back to haunt him.
Hopefully the same will happen to Allison Weir, although she hasn't made any pronouncements of quite the unbelievability level as Hicks recent pronouncement.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Sun, Mar 30, 2014 9:59:56 PM
"It would be nice if we could make a list of the things that Michael Hicks has got right over the years as far as Richard is concerned."
Carol responds:
His birth and death dates and the names of his family members?
Carol
Re: Hicks
Re: Hicks
Oh Eileen you are so right. The skeleton that was found was high status, buried in the choir of the Greyfriars church, as described in the written evidence, the battle wounds were as described, he was slim and had one shoulder higher than the other. The DNA was of a rare kind and matched that of a living descendent, and added to that the rebuilt head looks much like extant paintings of Richard III.
What more proof does Michael Hicks want?
I find it worrying.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 11:42:28 AM
Only a high status person would have been buried in the choir of the church.....Prof Hicks has indeed shot himself in the foot with this one...the silly sausage...Eileen
Re: Hicks
Never mind Richard, where do we bury Hicks’ career?
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: 31 March 2014 13:31
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
Oh
Eileen you are so right. The skeleton that was found was high status, buried
in the choir of the Greyfriars church, as described in the written evidence,
the battle wounds were as described, he was slim and had one shoulder higher
than the other. The DNA was of a rare kind and matched that of a living
descendent, and added to that the rebuilt head looks much like extant
paintings of Richard III.
What more proof does Michael Hicks want?
I find it worrying.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 11:42:28
AM
Only a high status person would have been buried in the choir of the church.....Prof Hicks has indeed shot himself in the foot with this one...the silly sausage...Eileen
Re: Hicks
Re: Hicks
Potters Field????
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Stephen
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 7:34 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Hicks
Never mind Richard, where do we bury Hicks’ career?
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: 31 March 2014 13:31
To:
Subject: Re: Hicks
Oh Eileen you are so right. The skeleton that was found was high status, buried in the choir of the Greyfriars church, as described in the written evidence, the battle wounds were as described, he was slim and had one shoulder higher than the other. The
DNA was of a rare kind and matched that of a living descendent, and added to that the rebuilt head looks much like extant paintings of Richard III.
What more proof does Michael Hicks want?
I find it worrying.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 11:42:28 AM
Only a high status person would have been buried in the choir of the church.....Prof Hicks has indeed shot himself in the foot with this one...the silly sausage...Eileen
Re: Hicks
Re: Hicks
Gilda
On Mar 31, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Stephen wrote:
Never mind Richard, where do we bury Hicks' career? From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: 31 March 2014 13:31
To:
Subject: Re: Hicks
Oh Eileen you are so right. The skeleton that was found was high status, buried in the choir of the Greyfriars church, as described in the written evidence, the battle wounds were as described, he was slim and had one shoulder higher than the other. The DNA was of a rare kind and matched that of a living descendent, and added to that the rebuilt head looks much like extant paintings of Richard III.
What more proof does Michael Hicks want?
I find it worrying.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;To: <>;
Subject: Re: Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 11:42:28 AM
Only a high status person would have been buried in the choir of the church.....Prof Hicks has indeed shot himself in the foot with this one...the silly sausage...Eileen
Re: Hicks
Re: Hicks
Never mind Richard, where do we bury Hicks' career?
Carol responds:
Since, per Eileen, he's a "silly sausage" (love it, Eileen!) how about grinding up his academic credentials and sending them to a sausage factory! I considered suggesting that he's getting senile (each book seems worse than the last), but he's only about sixty-six, too early for senility as those of us who are getting up there know. Maybe that florid complexion indicates that he's drunk too much Malmsey?
Carol
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
"On the subject of Richard's mitochondrial DNA, Professor Hicks is dramatically understating the number of individuals who might share the same sequence. To establish the list you have to go back from his mother to her mother and then down to all descendants in the female line - stopping at, but including each male (who will share the DNA but not pass it on). You then go back another generation, daughter to mother and down again along all female lines. You have to repeat this ad infinitum. Because, even if you hit an empty generation with no more qualifying descendants, that person must have a mother so you have to keep going back and down again as far as you can."
Carol responds:
John Ashdown-Hill has already researched the female line in detail searching for descendants of Richard's sister, Anne. I have no doubt that he checked other leads as well, including descendants of Joan Beaufort, so he would know of any other men in that line who might have died of battle wounds and been buried at Leicester (not that any medieval battle besides Bosworth was fought there). In any case, he found not one but two descendants in the female line, both of which exactly matched Richard. That data was supported by descendants of John Beaufort in an illegitimate line, the legitimized line being extinct, whose Y chromosome matched Richard's. So we have Cecily Neville's (and Joan Beaufort's) mitochondrial DNA *and* the Plantagenet Y chromosome (via John of Gaunt via Edward III) in male Beaufort descendants also matching Richard's (via his father, also traceable to Edward III and his ancestors). What more confirmation can you need, DNA-wise, even setting aside all the other details previously mentioned, most notably burial exactly where contemporary sources said he was buried?
Hicks doesn't have a foot to stand on. It's firmly inserted in his mouth.
Carol
Re: Hicks
Re: Hicks
I have thought of somewhere to bury Michael Hicks reputation. The archive of the Flat Earth Society.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 5:35:44 PM
I used the term 'silly sausage' on here...but I could never post what I really called him....in my head of course...I am a lady after all :0)
Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
I am reasonably sure myself that the remains at Leicester are those of Richard. However, as I said in my post, Hicks is scientifically and logically correct in pointing out how little you can safely infer from a matching mt-DNA.
I don't doubt the accuracy of JAH's research in locating a suitable descendant against which to match - but this does not mean that the individuals necessarily inherited that DNA from the same individual.
I should have made my point about Philippa clearer - I was referring to the wife of Edward III. But female line descendants of Catherine de Roët's sister would also bear the same mt-DNA.
Philippa - usually called 'of Hainault' actually had the family name d'Avesnes. The de Roëts / Roeulx and the d'Avesnes families were closely linked on the continent, which is probably how the de Roëts came to England.
Now, if Philippa of Hainault and Catherine's mother shared the female line, all female line descendants of Edward III would too.
Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 5:07:17 PM
David Durose wrote :
"On the subject of Richard's mitochondrial DNA, Professor Hicks is dramatically understating the number of individuals who might share the same sequence. To establish the list you have to go back from his mother to her mother and then down to all descendants in the female line - stopping at, but including each male (who will share the DNA but not pass it on). You then go back another generation, daughter to mother and down again along all female lines. You have to repeat this ad infinitum. Because, even if you hit an empty generation with no more qualifying descendants, that person must have a mother so you have to keep going back and down again as far as you can."
Carol responds:
John Ashdown-Hill has already researched the female line in detail searching for descendants of Richard's sister, Anne. I have no doubt that he checked other leads as well, including descendants of Joan Beaufort, so he would know of any other men in that line who might have died of battle wounds and been buried at Leicester (not that any medieval battle besides Bosworth was fought there). In any case, he found not one but two descendants in the female line, both of which exactly matched Richard. That data was supported by descendants of John Beaufort in an illegitimate line, the legitimized line being extinct, whose Y chromosome matched Richard's. So we have Cecily Neville's (and Joan Beaufort's) mitochondrial DNA *and* the Plantagenet Y chromosome (via John of Gaunt via Edward III) in male Beaufort descendants also matching Richard's (via his father, also traceable to Edward III and his ancestors). What more confirmation can you need, DNA-wise, even setting aside all the other details previously mentioned, most notably burial exactly where contemporary sources said he was buried?
Hicks doesn't have a foot to stand on. It's firmly inserted in his mouth.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Hicks
The Phillippa I referred to was Katrherine’s known mtDNA sharer ie the other de Roet sister (c.1346-87), who married Geoffrey Chaucer. They seem to have had two daughters, one becoming a nun at about twelve and the other a lady in waiting to Henry IV. She is quite possibly a dead end.
Philippa “of Hainault” was
maternally a Valois , with no known female line
connection to the de Roets because their mother is unknown.
mtDNA conclusively proves whether two people have a common female line ancestor.
The Greyfriars remains share one with Michael Ibsen and the unknown back-up.
Hicks is totally in error here and http://sunnesandroses.blogspot.co.uk/
demonstrates that Richard had only one contemporary mtDNA sharer at Bosworth,
who survived the battle.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: 01 April 2014 10:49
To:
Subject: Re : Re: Re : Re:
Hicks
Hi Carol,
I am reasonably sure myself that the remains at Leicester
are those of Richard. However, as I said in my post, Hicks is scientifically
and logically correct in pointing out how little you can safely infer from a
matching mt-DNA.
I don't doubt the accuracy of JAH's research in locating a suitable
descendant against which to match - but this does not mean that the
individuals necessarily inherited that DNA from the same individual.
I should have made my point about Philippa clearer - I was referring to the
wife of Edward III. But female line descendants of Catherine de Roët's sister
would also bear the same mt-DNA.
Philippa - usually called 'of Hainault' actually had the family name
d'Avesnes. The de Roëts / Roeulx and the d'Avesnes families were closely
linked on the continent, which is probably how the de Roëts came to
England .
Now, if Philippa of Hainault and Catherine's mother shared the female line,
all female line descendants of Edward III would too.
Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: < >;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Hicks
Sent: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 5:07:17 PM
David Durose wrote :
"On the subject of Richard's mitochondrial
DNA, Professor Hicks is dramatically understating the number of individuals
who might share the same sequence. To establish the list you have to go
back from his mother to her mother and then down to all descendants in the
female line - stopping at, but including each male (who will share the DNA
but not pass it on). You then go back another generation, daughter to
mother and down again along all female lines. You have to repeat this ad
infinitum. Because, even if you hit an empty generation with no more
qualifying descendants, that person must have a mother so you have to keep
going back and down again as far as you can."
Carol responds:
John Ashdown-Hill has already researched the female line in detail
searching for descendants of Richard's sister, Anne. I have no doubt that
he checked other leads as well, including descendants of Joan Beaufort, so
he would know of any other men in that line who might have died of battle
wounds and been buried at Leicester (not that any medieval battle besides
Bosworth was fought there). In any case, he found not one but two
descendants in the female line, both of which exactly matched Richard. That
data was supported by descendants of John Beaufort in an illegitimate line,
the legitimized line being extinct, whose Y chromosome matched Richard's.
So we have Cecily Neville's (and Joan Beaufort's) mitochondrial DNA *and*
the Plantagenet Y chromosome (via John of Gaunt via Edward III) in male
Beaufort descendants also matching Richard's (via his father, also traceable
to Edward III and his ancestors). What more confirmation can you need,
DNA-wise, even setting aside all the other details previously mentioned,
most notably burial exactly where contemporary sources said he was buried?
Hicks doesn't have a foot to stand on. It's firmly inserted in his mouth.
Carol
Re: Hicks
Carol,
I was looking for details about the Plantagenet Y chromosome not long ago, but couldn't find any details. The Beaufort descendants have supplied a dna sample, but I didn't know that it matched Richard's. I had heard that there was some difficulty with establishing the exact code because Y dna degrades more easily than mt type. Has there been any updates in the research, and do you know of any links?
Hicks is a fool though. There are some discussions about this topic on the Facebook page, and one person posted that after researching Joan Beaufort's sons and grandsons, only Richard and Ralph de Greystoke could have been at Bosworth, and Greystoke died in 1487. I also had a look at descendants of Joan Beaufort (not as detailed) and reached a similar conclusion (posted on the other thread.) If amateurs like me can spare a bit of time to do some research, then why can't a professor do the same before he makes sweeping statements? It makes you wonder how much time he spends researching his books. I always thought his analysis was rather shallow. No credibility at all, I'm afraid.
Nico
Re: Hicks
"I was looking for details about the Plantagenet Y chromosome not long ago, but couldn't find any details. The Beaufort descendants have supplied a dna sample, but I didn't know that it matched Richard's. I had heard that there was some difficulty with establishing the exact code because Y dna degrades more easily than mt type. Has there been any updates in the research, and do you know of any links?"
Carol responds:
Sorry about that. I thought that the Y-chromosome had already compared with that of the Beaufort descendants, but apparently the research is ongoing. I found this undated article at the U of Leicester website: http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html They've found male-line descendants whose Y-chromosomes are being examined (actually, J-AH identified the descendants in 2010, IIRC), but as of the writing of the article, those chromosomes had not yet been compared to Richard's. When that happens, there should be no more questions from Hicks et al. (as if there weren't already a surfeit of evidence). The oldest comment on the article is from February 2013, which means that the article is at least that old. Presumably, the research has progressed since that date, but possibly the researchers are waiting until they publish their articles to update the website.
Apparently, Richard's Y-chromosome was very degraded http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/more-dna-tests-to-confirm-skeleton-is-richard-iiis.html?_r=0 which may be one reason that the U of Leicester is obtaining more DNA samples.
If anyone has more up-to-date information, please post.
Carol
Re: Hicks
Mary
Re: Hicks
Thanks Carol for the
links. Very interesting - I hope Dr. King does manage to get the match she
needs.
Nico
Re: Hicks
"Thanks Carol for the links. Very interesting - I hope Dr. King does manage to get the match she needs."
Carol responds:
You're welcome. Me, too. Apologies for any font glitches. Yahoo is being more than usually uncooperative this morning.
Carol
