ARTICLE: Treachery - what really brought down R3

I can't tell when this was article was posted, but it mentions a March 2013 podcast (at the bottom of the article) and has a lot of information on "The Harringtons vs. Stanleys = Richard lost" that I'd never heard before.

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii

It mentions about David Hipshon and his book, R3 and the Death of Chivalry, but it tries to explain Richard's losing rather than marketing the book.

~Weds

It's a very good book, if you haven't got it. One well worth the investment. 



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 3:27
Subject: ARTICLE: Treachery - what really brought down R3

 

I can't tell when this was article was posted, but it mentions a March 2013 podcast (at the bottom of the article) and has a lot of information on "The Harringtons vs. Stanleys = Richard lost" that I'd never heard before.

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii

It mentions about David Hipshon and his book, R3 and the Death of Chivalry, but it tries to explain Richard's losing rather than marketing the book.

~Weds

Does anyone know where EofY & Co. were at the time of Henry's coronation? Would they have attended? I can't find any mentions.

Sandra

Sandra....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where EofY & Co. were at the time of Henry’s coronation? Would they have attended? I can’t find any mentions.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

Eileen wrote: >>>....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...<<<

Sandra replies:
Thank you, Eileen. One wonders how EofY and MB got on together. And did either of them actually attend Henry's coronation? All accounts I've read seem to mention men to the exclusion of women. If there was no queen to crown, did women stay away? Did they stay away anyway, leaving Anne Neville on her own, except for ladies in waiting? I really am curious. I am especially curious about Richard's second niece, Cecily/Cicely/Cecille/Cecilia, or however one chooses to spell her name. If her first marriage to Ralph Scrope was to be annulled, presumably it was not consummated and so she was not away on his estates, or whatever. So was she with EofY and MB at Coldharbour? I know Cecily and MB got on well, but I think that was later, after Cecily married MB's half-brother.

Sandra

Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote: >>>....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...<<<
>
> Sandra replies:
> Thank you, Eileen. One wonders how EofY and MB got on together. And did either of them actually attend Henry’s coronation? All accounts I’ve read seem to mention men to the exclusion of women. If there was no queen to crown, did women stay away? Did they stay away anyway, leaving Anne Neville on her own, except for ladies in waiting? I really am curious. I am especially curious about Richard’s second niece, Cecily/Cicely/Cecille/Cecilia, or however one chooses to spell her name. If her first marriage to Ralph Scrope was to be annulled, presumably it was not consummated and so she was not away on his estates, or whatever. So was she with EofY and MB at Coldharbour? I know Cecily and MB got on well, but I think that was later, after Cecily married MB’s half-brother.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back.

Sandra


From: EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen

Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund’s decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he’d glanced at his sundial and thought, “Nah, I can’t be bothered now, I’ll do it when I get back”.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

And what a tangled web of dastardly deeds......

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces



Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces




Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, "Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back".
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

No...I havent...oooops...if you get behind on the posts nowadays it is pretty hard to catch up. Although I did know JA-H has a new book about to come out. OMG..you know...what a nest of vipers they were...I have seen a post that mentions the Weasle did not have any Welsh blood at all in his miserable veins at all....what a blasted cad...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund’s decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he’d glanced at his sundial and thought, “Nah, I can’t be bothered now, I’ll do it when I get back”.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

They got away with blue murder didnt they? Swines!....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And what a tangled web of dastardly deeds......
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, "Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back".
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

That they did. If there is a heaven and happen to get there, I will ask management why some SOB's get to live, while some very wonderful people are taken away much too soon. We can only surmise......but I think the Tudors, for all the wealth and splendor they amassed, were not happy.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:04 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



They got away with blue murder didnt they? Swines!....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And what a tangled web of dastardly deeds......
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, "Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back".
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, “Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...” I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. “All this, and now you tell me?”
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry Sandra, I was asking Eileen because I know she's been away. I love your scenario:)



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:13
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

I agree....Weasle does not sound as if he were a happy bunny does he? I would say here poor old EoY but I have not got to the bottom of that one yet...

I suspect, after reading "The King's Mother' that MB was not of a sunny disposition either but I think there were OCCASIONS that she revelled in the fact that her son was King and she seems to have been around him plenty of times despite having many homes of her own...swanning around in a "rich" coronet as if she were the Queen. That she did many good things has been pointed out and made a lot of but I say to that "Bah" it was what would have been expected of a very rich person and even today that applies...so no it does not make me think any highly of her. However she did suffer from arthritis...probably from spending a lot of time in draughty corridors earwigging and plotting. But at the end of the day...No...I dont think she was a bundle of joy and she outlived her son which is surely a terrible thing for any mother...Eileen


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
>but I think the Tudors, for all the wealth and splendor they amassed, were not happy.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:04 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> They got away with blue murder didnt they? Swines!....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > And what a tangled web of dastardly deeds......
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:49 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 14:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sandra...you speak of ET getting a 12 year old wife preggers....Yes...ghastly man...Apparently there was a motive behind his dastardly behaviour...I was reading in Michael Jones' book "The King's Mother" .... "at the time of her marriage to ET the 12 year old was a great heiress. It was normal practice to wait until the woman was 14 before consummating the marriage, indeed that was often specified in the contract. Yet's M's territorial position gave the 26 year old Edmund a brutal and exploitative motive for immediately making her pregnant. By this he ensured a life-interest in his wife's inheritance for once a living child was produced no matter how short it's life the father became tenant by courtesy of England and was legally entitled to his wife's estates until his death"...which proved not to be too far away in Edmund's case...Talk about Karma...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, "Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back".
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, “Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...” I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. “All this, and now you tell me?”
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.


On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> ý
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Iýýýve caught up with them, Hilary. Iýýým afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ýýýfactsýýý as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardýýýs tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ýýýAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperýýýs father, Edmund Tudor...ýýý I can imagine Richardýýýs face. What a study. ýýýAll this, and now you tell me?ýýý
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, “Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...” I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. “All this, and now you tell me?”
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

 Pamela, that's a 'dipper' rather than a cover to cover so good luck! Lingering in dust on my bookshelf I found a copy of 'England in the Age of Caxton' by Geoffrey Hindley, which I must have bought from a book club years' ago and never looked at. I would say it's as good as Kendall or Mortimer and he's definitely very pro-Richard, so if you find it in a garage sale .....



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.


On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> Â
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, “Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...” I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. “All this, and now you tell me?”
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, I do like the term "dipper". OK, with your permission, I shall move on, and dip, when necessary!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Pamela, that's a 'dipper' rather than a cover to cover so good luck! Lingering in dust on my bookshelf I found a copy of 'England in the Age of Caxton' by Geoffrey Hindley, which I must have bought from a book club years' ago and never looked at. I would say it's as good as Kendall or Mortimer and he's definitely very pro-Richard, so if you find it in a garage sale .....

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com><mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:

Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> Â
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I'd certainly put JAH before that. No contest.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:53
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

Oh, I do like the term "dipper". OK, with your permission, I shall move on, and dip, when necessary!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Pamela, that's a 'dipper' rather than a cover to cover so good luck! Lingering in dust on my bookshelf I found a copy of 'England in the Age of Caxton' by Geoffrey Hindley, which I must have bought from a book club years' ago and never looked at. I would say it's as good as Kendall or Mortimer and he's definitely very pro-Richard, so if you find it in a garage sale .....

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com><mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>> wrote:

Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> Â
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yes Sir, order received and begun!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Yes, I'd certainly put JAH before that. No contest.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:53
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces



Oh, I do like the term "dipper". OK, with your permission, I shall move on, and dip, when necessary!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com><mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

Pamela, that's a 'dipper' rather than a cover to cover so good luck! Lingering in dust on my bookshelf I found a copy of 'England in the Age of Caxton' by Geoffrey Hindley, which I must have bought from a book club years' ago and never looked at. I would say it's as good as Kendall or Mortimer and he's definitely very pro-Richard, so if you find it in a garage sale .....

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com><mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com><mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>><mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com><mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>>>> wrote:

Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> Â
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

OMG Hilary...what are you like?? Many a good woman has ended up throttled for lesser than that.!...lol...

Well maybe EoY had trouble focussing too...maybe if she really really squinted up her eyes Henry may have looked like a medieval Brad Pitt...Eileen


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
> Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, “Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...” I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. “All this, and now you tell me?”
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ‘facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â€Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...� I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. â€Å"All this, and now you tell me?�
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Iââ¬â¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iââ¬â¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ââ¬ËSfactsââ¬â¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardââ¬â¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ââ¬Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperââ¬â¢s father, Edmund Tudor...ââ¬ï¿½ I can imagine Richardââ¬â¢s face. What a study. ââ¬Å"All this, and now you tell me?ââ¬ï¿½
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen, Henry probably couldn't see either of the Richards, not because he
had wobbly eyes, but because he was already flat on his face behind his
bodyguard. Talk about a low profile.

Sandra

The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â€ËÅ"facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â€Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...� I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. â€Å"All this, and now you tell me?�
> > > > >
> > > > > Sandra
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is excellent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces



Sorry Sandra, I was asking Eileen because I know she's been away. I love your scenario:)

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:13
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces




Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> ý
>
> Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > ýýý
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ýýýýý
> > > >
> > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Iýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýve caught up with them, Hilary. Iýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýým afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ýýýýýýýýýýýýýý"factsýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ýýýýýýýýýýýýý"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs father, Edmund Tudor...ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý I can imagine Richardýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs face. What a study. ýýýýýýýýýýýýý"All this, and now you tell me?ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > >
> > > > > Sandra
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lol...or he probably had both eyes squeezed very very shut...Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, Henry probably couldn't see either of the Richards, not because he
> had wobbly eyes, but because he was already flat on his face behind his
> bodyguard. Talk about a low profile.
>
> Sandra
>

Was that The Last Days of Richard or Eleanor the Secret Queen. We could make a small fortune selling our copies. The trouble is both books are so good I could never part with them...Is one of JA-H's books getting reprinted? Stephen might know? Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I’ve caught up with them, Hilary. I’m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â€ËÅ"facts’ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard’s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â€Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper’s father, Edmund Tudor...� I can imagine Richard’s face. What a study. â€Å"All this, and now you tell me?�
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

True. And JAH has one out soon I believe on George?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:11
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > à
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > >
> > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"factsÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s father, Edmund Tudor...Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s face. What a study. Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"All
this, and now you tell me?Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½
> > > > >
> > > > > Sandra
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I will give you one guess who is writing a Clarence biography next year.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces



Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces




I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>> Lol...or he probably had both eyes squeezed very very shut...Eileen<<<
I have to ask, Eileen, would it have been one at a time, do you think??
Sandra

Oh...good news...I look forward to that. I have found out that you really do need to get copies of these books when they first come out...after that....you need a lottery win...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> True. And JAH has one out soon I believe on George?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:11
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"factsÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s father, Edmund Tudor...ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s face. What a study. ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"All
> this, and now you tell me?ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That will be a definite pre-order.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

I will give you one guess who is writing a Clarence biography next year.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Iâ¬"ve caught up with them, Hilary. Iâ¬"m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the â¬Üfactsâ¬" as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardâ¬"s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, â¬SAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperâ¬"s father, Edmund Tudor...â¬ý I can imagine Richardâ¬"s face. What a study. â¬SAll this, and now you tell me?â¬ý
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes it is......and yes, you could make a small pile of money selling your books.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Was that The Last Days of Richard or Eleanor the Secret Queen. We could make a small fortune selling our copies. The trouble is both books are so good I could never part with them...Is one of JA-H's books getting reprinted? Stephen might know? Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > > ýýý
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýý
> > >
> > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Iýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýve caught up with them, Hilary. Iýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýým afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ýýýýýýýýýýýýýý"factsýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ýýýýýýýýýýýýý"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs father, Edmund Tudor...ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý I can imagine Richardýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýs face. What a study. ýýýýýýýýýýýýý"All this, and now you tell me?ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No deffo both at the same time. Have you ever watched a horror movie with eyes squeezed tight and/or holding a cushion over your eyes...well like that :0) I expect he went white, very very white too...Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> >>> Lol...or he probably had both eyes squeezed very very shut...Eileen<<<
> I have to ask, Eileen, would it have been one at a time, do you think??
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>

If you want "England in the Age of Caxton" move fast. Amazon has copies going at one penny plus postage & I have just ordered one!

Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Mar 2013, at 16:13, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
>> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
>>>>> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ã’â¬a
>>>>>
>>>>> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"factsÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s father, Edmund Tudor...Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s face. What a study. Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"All this, and now you tell me?Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandra
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Hilary Jones
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ordered!

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> If you want "England in the Age of Caxton" move fast. Amazon has copies going at one penny plus postage & I have just ordered one!
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 16:13, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> >> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> >>> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>>
> >>> I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ÃÆ'‚
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"factsÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s father, Edmund Tudor...ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s face. What a study. ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"All this, and now you tell me?ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sandra
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Hilary Jones
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> >>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
>
>
>
>

Holy cow! Grilled tools for dinner!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
> Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug.
Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at
you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double
vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a
battle."

Doug here:
I have a "lazy" eye and absolutely no depth perception because of that. I
don't think one would need *that* much depth perception in hand-to-hand
fighting, so Henry doesn't get a pass of hiding behind Cheney. Now, if he
was trying to catch an arrow in his teeth...
Doug



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces




Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder
he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if
he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his
face....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in
> one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly
> > snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at
> > the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many
> > centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate
> > grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go
> > to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your
> > Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the
> > legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can
> > imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is
> > to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been
> > illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

That is hilarious. My mother kept pots in the oven. Very late in my father's life, when he had Macular Degeneration and Dementia, he decided to bake something. It was a comedy of errors, as pots were ruined, smoke came out of the oven, and the fire alarm summoned the fire department......

On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Holy cow! Grilled tools for dinner!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
> Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Iýve caught up with them, Hilary. Iým afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ýfactsý as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richardýs tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ýAhem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperýs father, Edmund Tudor...ý I can imagine Richardýs face. What a study. ýAll this, and now you tell me?ý
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund’s decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he’d glanced at his sundial and thought, “Nah, I can’t be bothered now, I’ll do it when I get back”.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No kidding.....that may be a small sign of how very odious Henry8 was!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmundýýýs decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if heýýýd glanced at his sundial and thought, ýýýNah, I canýýýt be bothered now, Iýýýll do it when I get backýýý.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Pamela...did you say odious or odorous...? Maybe both....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding.....that may be a small sign of how very odious Henry8 was!
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund’s decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he’d glanced at his sundial and thought, “Nah, I can’t be bothered now, I’ll do it when I get back”.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wonderful......probably both!

On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Pamela...did you say odious or odorous...? Maybe both....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding.....that may be a small sign of how very odious Henry8 was!
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com><http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts><http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com><http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmundýýýs decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if heýýýd glanced at his sundial and thought, ýýýNah, I canýýýt be bothered now, Iýýýll do it when I get backýýý.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Last Days" is in a new post-dig edition.
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces



Was that The Last Days of Richard or Eleanor the Secret Queen. We could make a small fortune selling our copies. The trouble is both books are so good I could never part with them...Is one of JA-H's books getting reprinted? Stephen might know? Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ãfâ?s
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, IÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the Ãf¢ââ?s¬Ã<Å"factsÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ãf¢ââ?s¬Ã."Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢s father, Edmund Tudor...Ãf¢ââ?s¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÃf¢ââ?s‰â?z¢s face. What a study. Ãf¢ââ?s¬Ã."All this, and now you tell me?Ãf¢ââ?s¬ï¿½
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.comhttp://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Sandra....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...Eileen

Carol responds:

Not by choice, right? Wasn't she taken from Sheriff Hutton, along with Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret, and put in MB's keeping (in the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms after Henry evicted the heralds and gave it to his mother)? I suspect that EW and her younger daughters were with them, the sons having been (presumably) sent off to Burgundy earlier. EoY's sister Cecily may have been with her at Sheriff Hutton or at the home of her husband, Ralph Scrope of Upsall (who apparently fought for Richard and survived), and presumably escorted to London to be with her sister if she wasn't already with her. Henry had the marriage annulled in 1486 so that she could marry one of his followers, Viscount Welles.

At any rate, Henry seems to have gathered all the legitimate Plantagenets and placed them in his mother's keeping at the first opportunity. I suspect that he wanted EW under his mother's watchful eye as well.

Carol

-
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Sandra....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not by choice, right?

Eileen: Who knows? There is nothing to tell us what her thoughts/opinions were. Maybe when she was told she would be Queen she went along with it quite happily. I do have my misgivings about EoY...

Carol:
Wasn't she taken from Sheriff Hutton, along with Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret, and put in MB's keeping (in the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms after Henry evicted the heralds and gave it to his mother)?

Eileen: Yes and that was Coldharbour and EoY was definitely living there with MB after Bosworth But this house was given an upgrade so that I why I was not sure how soon after Bosworth...whether they would have lived there with the builders in I dunno.

Carol:
I suspect that EW and her younger daughters were with them,


Eileen:

I suspect they were not...EW and MB would never have lived together in the same house...(not without blood being spilt) Im 100% sure of this....Eileen



the sons having been (presumably) sent off to Burgundy earlier. EoY's sister Cecily may have been with her at Sheriff Hutton or at the home of her husband, Ralph Scrope of Upsall (who apparently fought for Richard and survived), and presumably escorted to London to be with her sister if she wasn't already with her. Henry had the marriage annulled in 1486 so that she could marry one of his followers, Viscount Welles.
>
> At any rate, Henry seems to have gathered all the legitimate Plantagenets and placed them in his mother's keeping at the first opportunity. I suspect that he wanted EW under his mother's watchful eye as well.
>
> Carol
>

Hello Carol. Sandra here  it was my question that started this thread. Thank you very much for your reply about EoY & Co. It would be interesting to know more about Cecily's marital situations. Did she really like either of her first two husbands? Or just the last one, Thomas Kymbe, who definitely seems to have been a love match. Oh, to have a time machine....

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Sandra....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...Eileen

Carol responds:

Not by choice, right? Wasn't she taken from Sheriff Hutton, along with Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret, and put in MB's keeping (in the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms after Henry evicted the heralds and gave it to his mother)? I suspect that EW and her younger daughters were with them, the sons having been (presumably) sent off to Burgundy earlier. EoY's sister Cecily may have been with her at Sheriff Hutton or at the home of her husband, Ralph Scrope of Upsall (who apparently fought for Richard and survived), and presumably escorted to London to be with her sister if she wasn't already with her. Henry had the marriage annulled in 1486 so that she could marry one of his followers, Viscount Welles.

At any rate, Henry seems to have gathered all the legitimate Plantagenets and placed them in his mother's keeping at the first opportunity. I suspect that he wanted EW under his mother's watchful eye as well.

Carol

Sandra wrote:
> [snip] I am especially curious about Richard’s second niece, Cecily/Cicely/Cecille/Cecilia, or however one chooses to spell her name. If her first marriage to Ralph Scrope was to be annulled, presumably it was not consummated and so she was not away on his estates, or whatever. So was she with EofY and MB at Coldharbour? I know Cecily and MB got on well, but I think that was later, after Cecily married MB’s half-brother.

Carol responds:

Marriages that had been consummated could be annulled on the grounds of missing papal dispensations or other impediments.

You may be interested in this discussion from a genealogical forum.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-10/1065015896

Obviously, the participants in the discussion are unaware of Richard's promise to EW to find suitable husbands for her daughters and charge the husbands "lovingly to love them," but the first post contains two interesting bits of information, the "divorce" record for Cecily and Ralph: "York Consistory Act Book, vol. 4, f. 88r (1486) . . . a suit between ?preclara ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet contra Radulphum Scrope de Upsall" (question mark in original post) and the blood relationship between the two: "Ralph Scrope and Cecily Plantagenet were related in the 4th and 3rd degrees of kindred, being both descended from Joan (or Jane) Beaufort, the legitimated daughter of John of Gaunt," which would have required a papal dispensation.

That's all I know other than what I stated in an earlier post, that Scrope apparently fought for Richard at Bosworth but survived the battle. (Had he not, no "divorce" [annulment] would have been necessary). The marriage was evidently childless, but whether it was consummated, I don't know. It obviously occurred some time after Cecily left sanctuary on March 1, 1484, and her husband was presumably with Richard at Nottingham from June to August 1485. I don't know how much time they would have spent together apart from those months (and, if I recall correctly, a similar stay at Nottingham in the summer or 1484 if the marriage had taken place by that time).

It's highly unfortunate that the chroniclers didn't think it worthwhile to chronicle the movements of women and children except in very rare cases.

Carol

You are right! Just like us regular people!!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Yes, I doubt very few women at the time actually wrote about their feelings. And those like Cecily, probably were fated to be a pawn for position and power. Only in the latter years would they have a choice - maybe.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:



Hello Carol. Sandra here ý it was my question that started this thread. Thank you very much for your reply about EoY & Co. It would be interesting to know more about Cecilyýs marital situations. Did she really like either of her first two husbands? Or just the last one, Thomas Kymbe, who definitely seems to have been a love match. Oh, to have a time machine....

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Sandra....after Bosworth EoY went to live with MB, possibly at a house called Coldharbour in London which was given to her by her son Weasle. What I would really love to know is where was EW and her other children...Eileen

Carol responds:

Not by choice, right? Wasn't she taken from Sheriff Hutton, along with Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret, and put in MB's keeping (in the house that Richard had given to his newly established College of Arms after Henry evicted the heralds and gave it to his mother)? I suspect that EW and her younger daughters were with them, the sons having been (presumably) sent off to Burgundy earlier. EoY's sister Cecily may have been with her at Sheriff Hutton or at the home of her husband, Ralph Scrope of Upsall (who apparently fought for Richard and survived), and presumably escorted to London to be with her sister if she wasn't already with her. Henry had the marriage annulled in 1486 so that she could marry one of his followers, Viscount Welles.

At any rate, Henry seems to have gathered all the legitimate Plantagenets and placed them in his mother's keeping at the first opportunity. I suspect that he wanted EW under his mother's watchful eye as well.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

Carol responds:

But, of course, it's all theoretical and we haven't yet seen the evidence that J A-H intends to present. Also, if Edmund Tudor's father was Edmund Beaufort, the younger Edmund might not have known it, in which case, MB and their son wouldn't have known it, either. (Of course, if Henry *did* know it and played up his "Welshness" anyway, there was even less honor in him than I thought. Edmund Tudor was illegitimate regardless of whether his father was EB or Owen Tudor, and, of course, the whole Beaufort line started out as illegitimate and was barred from the crown. ET and MB as cousins without a papal dispensation would just add one more illegitimacy to the two we know about.

I can just imagine Henry IV, who usurped the throne, started the Lancastrian line, and barred his Beaufort half-brothers from the crown, seeing what had happened in the person of Henry Tudor (or Beaufort) claiming the throne as the rightful Lancastrian heir! (Not his main claim, of course, but I don't think Bolingbroke would be happy.)

Carol

I got The Secret Queen from Amazon UK a couple of weeks ago. (Not yet started, am having some light relief with Elizabeht Jane Howard) it cost me £8.99 I think.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:16
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

 
Was that The Last Days of Richard or Eleanor the Secret Queen. We could make a small fortune selling our copies. The trouble is both books are so good I could never part with them...Is one of JA-H's books getting reprinted? Stephen might know? Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"factsÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s father, Edmund Tudor...Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢s face. What a study. Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&"All
this, and now you tell me?Ò¢ââ¬a¬ï¿½
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

liz..you will enjoy...i think everyone with an interest in richard and his position after edwards death should read this book...eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I got The Secret Queen from Amazon UK a couple of weeks ago. (Not yet started, am having some light relief with Elizabeht Jane Howard) it cost me £8.99 I think.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:16
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> Was that The Last Days of Richard or Eleanor the Secret Queen. We could make a small fortune selling our copies. The trouble is both books are so good I could never part with them...Is one of JA-H's books getting reprinted? Stephen might know? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > No kidding...... One of JA-H's books on Amazon started at $100, used.
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The trouble is that since Richard has been found 2nd hand books on anything Ricardian have soared in price...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks. Perhaps it will appear cheaply somewhere, I'll keep a lookout.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:07
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Well its expensive you know...perhaps a book for borrowing..although I wouldnt mind owning it .I have just started reading it and like it so far but let you know more later. Its full of facts. Such as the absolutely privileged life that George (and Richard) lived when he was very young....Of course I know this is an obvious fact but still when you read the details it brings it home. I am even in the early part of the book picking up the feeling that Hick's does not really rate Richard ...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it worth getting? As you know, I'll read anything on our George.
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:52
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > I'm was being a good girl and ploughing my way through The King's Mother but someone has kindly lent me Hicks' book on Georgie Clarence which I am enjoying. Anyway that is another story/topic...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh Eileen, you have tickled me, as always. Since, as Carol pointed out, the face of Richard as seen in the model, had a slight cast in the eye, which is probably the artist's placement. But if not, they might have seen "eye to eye"! Just kidding. Last night I started Kendall's "The Yorkist Age". I got mad on page 29, so this may be very slow ploughing. But, I have two JA-H books waiting for me, so may continue this torment. As a newbie, but having been enlightened by the group, it does set my mind in somewhat more order. My thanks again, for all of those who have supplied book titles.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ve caught up with them, Hilary. IÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢m afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"factsÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurperÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s father, Edmund Tudor...ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½ I can imagine RichardÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢s face. What a study. ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å"All
> this, and now you tell me?ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ï¿½
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very noxious! Plumes of black smoke and melted handles. Didn't taste too good.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Holy cow! Grilled tools for dinner!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
> Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

The excuse was always that CoV was lonely, but I don't buy that . She seems to have been very well looked after, considering she was a princess from a 'conquered' land. In fact she seemed to have more access to her son the King than many Queens had to their eldest children who were taken away and set up in their own households from an early age, Edward of Westminster being one. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 18:11
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Ishita...I guess this proves that being a Princess and a Queen does not equate to having good old commonsense/brains. I think there have been some really daft members of the Royal fraternity down the ages...The one that springs to mind for me is Catherine Howard. Who on earth would be stupid enough to be unfaithful to a king who had already had one wife...framed or not...executed? If I had been in Catherine's shoes I would have been ever so good. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I blame Catherine of Valois for it all! As a princess and Queen she would have had more sense that take up with a squire! No affair, no Edmond. No Edmond no Henry!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > Ah, of course! The tears. I overlooked them. In spite of everything, she must have been thankful that Edmund Tudor broke the unwritten rules and did what he did, when he did. But for that, no Henry. What a thought. Everything, everything that followed, was as the result of Edmund's decision to consummate his marriage before trolling off into Wales, catching the plague, and turning up his toes. Just imagine if he'd glanced at his sundial and thought, Nah, I can't be bothered now, I'll do it when I get back.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > Well we do know that MB attended her son's Coronation because she wept copious tears ....Why? search me..you would have thought she would have been happy having managed by her plotting to have got Richard and his followers slaughtered at Bosworth. Maybe they were tears of joy..or tears of relief...fancy having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the yellow belly managed to survive purely because of the treachery of those that felt it in line to betray their sovereign king...Well no-one said life was fair...:0/ Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

 I did mention dementia - didn't go down well while he was trying to avoid burning his hands trying to extract them. How did we get to this? Oh yes criticising HT deserves penance.


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 18:08
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

That is hilarious. My mother kept pots in the oven. Very late in my father's life, when he had Macular Degeneration and Dementia, he decided to bake something. It was a comedy of errors, as pots were ruined, smoke came out of the oven, and the fire alarm summoned the fire department......

On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:41 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Holy cow! Grilled tools for dinner!

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> Well I've already accidentally cooked my husband's tools in the oven - didn't know he'd put them there to warm them up to do a job. So doing penance now! No wonder HT preferred to wear inconspicuous black. As you say, not the best of deals if EOY was looking for her Mr Darcy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:50
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>
>
> Yes...you would have to be daft to stand next to him if he were wielding a sword. Crickes..it dont paint a pretty picture does it? Bad teeth..eyes going every which way...EoY certainly drew the short straw there...still she got to wear a crown which seems to have been the most important thing to aim for then. I think I would rather have worn a skirt made of sackcloth than have to make babies with Henry...The mind boggles...Eileen
> Ps..we're being really really horrid today to Weasle and his mother...and we will probably get paid back...like more snow! Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yep - I stumbled on it in Thomas Penn when looking something up for Doug. Must have been very off-putting when you met him and only one eye looked at you. No wonder all his portraits show him as kinda sly. I love the double vision bit - I suppose he'd find it difficult to know where to aim in a battle.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:37
> > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord!...you mean Weasle had a problem in focussing...Blimey...no wonder he hid behind a tree/bunch of French mercenaries at Bosworth...I wonder if he saw two of Richard thundering down on him with a bloodlust written on his face....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And to think that today I stumbled on the fact that Henry had a cast in one eye - so he never looked you in the face!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 15:20
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whew...it's enough to make you weep.......:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've caught up with them, Hilary. I'm afraid I made reprehensibly snide comments based on the facts' as they applied to the coronation at the time. The given facts, that is, not the ones we discuss now, so many centuries later. As far as the coronation went, Henry was the legitimate grandson of Owen Tudor. But, if only there had been a Stillington to go to Richard's tent on the eve of Bosworth and say, Ahem, actually, Your Grace, I have another little secret to tell you, this time about the legitimacy of this would-be usurper's father, Edmund Tudor... I can imagine Richard's face. What a study. All this, and now you tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:49 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> > > >
> > > > Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I don't think Bolingbroke would be happy at all; I don't see him as a glory seeker but as someone who wanted to put things right after the 'misrule' of Richard II. But I do see how MB could have seen her son (had her husband been the son of Beaufort, not Tudor) as being blessed with being doubly descended from John of Gaunt and Edward III, barred from the Crown or not. It could go a way to explaining her fanaticism.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you caught up with Stephen's posts about the next JAH book which is to assert ET's father was Edmund Beaufort - so our HT would have been illegitimate (no dispensation as they were cousins)?

Carol responds:

But, of course, it's all theoretical and we haven't yet seen the evidence that J A-H intends to present. Also, if Edmund Tudor's father was Edmund Beaufort, the younger Edmund might not have known it, in which case, MB and their son wouldn't have known it, either. (Of course, if Henry *did* know it and played up his "Welshness" anyway, there was even less honor in him than I thought. Edmund Tudor was illegitimate regardless of whether his father was EB or Owen Tudor, and, of course, the whole Beaufort line started out as illegitimate and was barred from the crown. ET and MB as cousins without a papal dispensation would just add one more illegitimacy to the two we know about.

I can just imagine Henry IV, who usurped the throne, started the Lancastrian line, and barred his Beaufort half-brothers from the crown, seeing what had happened in the person of Henry Tudor (or Beaufort) claiming the throne as the rightful Lancastrian heir! (Not his main claim, of course, but I don't think Bolingbroke would be happy.)

Carol

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> yellow belly managed to survive

Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
not.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> I have seen a post that mentions the Weasle did not have any Welsh blood
> at all in his miserable veins at all....what a blasted cad...Eileen

If he didn't, he probably didn't *know* he didn't. And he seems to have
been quite culturally Welsh - very itnerested in bards and poetry, anyway.

Claire,
 
you always give Henry the benefit of the doubt.  I can't because frankly he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  I don't think it takes courage to pinch a crown you're not entitled to  and cause the deaths of good men.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> yellow belly managed to survive

Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
not.

Im probably one of the fairest people you will ever meet but this is my perception of the situation....Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> > yellow belly managed to survive
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>

Liz...exactly...and most likely that he knew that Stanley would betray Richard. Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Claire,
>  
> you always give Henry the benefit of the doubt.  I can't because frankly he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  I don't think it takes courage to pinch a crown you're not entitled to  and cause the deaths of good men.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:47
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> > yellow belly managed to survive
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> (and, if I recall correctly, a similar stay at Nottingham in the summer or
> 1484 if the marriage had taken place by that time).

Some time around then, yes - Richard met a Scottish delegation in
Nottingham.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> you always give Henry the benefit of the doubt. I can't because frankly
> he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I don't think it takes
> courage to pinch a crown you're not entitled to and cause the deaths of
> good men.

But right up until about WW2, most people thought it was perfectly
acceptable to take someone else's country off them if you could. Otherwise
white America and Australia wouldn't exist, not to mention Protestant
Northern Ireland. We think it was bad now, but people usually act according
to what is normal in their own era.

Carol earlier:

> I suspect that EW and her younger daughters were with them,
>
> Eileen:
>
> I suspect they were not...EW and MB would never have lived together in the same house...(not without blood being spilt) Im 100% sure of this....Eileen

Carol responds:

With them (EoY, Edward of Warwick, and his sister, Margaret) at Sheriff Hutton, then, but perhaps placed in a separate household once they got to London? Henry was in no hurry to marry Elizabeth of York, in any case, and she had been expecting to marry Manuel of Portugal, so I'm not sure she would be happy about marrying him. Of course, everything depends on how she felt about her Uncle Richard. If she was mourning him (or had even hoped against all reason to marry him), she definitely would not be happy about marrying Henry Tudor. If she was just an airhead who wanted to overcome her bastardy (which she must have known was real--if not, why did no one step forward to object to Titulus Regius in Parliament?) by marrying anyone with a crown, however obtained, that was a different matter.

I'm not sure why you think so badly of her. I prefer to think that she mourned her uncle (as a kind and generous young uncle) rather than to see her as she's depicted in "The Ballad of the Lady Bessy" (which I think is as far from accurate in depicting her as in depicting Richard). She seems to have been rather weak and frivolous, no doubt vain, too, but I blame her upbringing for that.

Carol

Be fair?

It might be more fair to say that it took Henry less courage to do all that to face his obsessed, fanatical mother and say, "If YOU want the bloody crown so much, YOU face the King. I'll stay here and wait to see if you live or die. This is your fight, not mine."

The man could be beaten down by Reginald Bray even after he was king. Between the two of them, Henry didn't stand a chance. I can just hear Bray now: "I brought you your first set of bows and arrows, and they were paid for by your mum. The least you can do to repay us is fall in with our plans to invade, you ungrateful, untrained wretch."

Nope. I think it was easier for Henry to go into battle than to man up and think for himself.

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>

Well apart form the fact that it's hardly the same situation, I don't think two (or 200 or 2000) wrongs make this right.  We wouldn't make excuses for them so why make them for Henry?
 
 
 

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> you always give Henry the benefit of the doubt. I can't because frankly
> he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I don't think it takes
> courage to pinch a crown you're not entitled to and cause the deaths of
> good men.

But right up until about WW2, most people thought it was perfectly
acceptable to take someone else's country off them if you could. Otherwise
white America and Australia wouldn't exist, not to mention Protestant
Northern Ireland. We think it was bad now, but people usually act according
to what is normal in their own era.

I don't know why you give him the credit for being an 'untrained civilian', Claire. He grew up with the Herbert children and was then with Uncle Jasper long enough to to talk strategy, if not to get some arms practice in, even though he was moved from castle to castle by Duke Francis. And by the way, he did feign his illness in St Malo in 1475; his biographer says that. Nothing I've ever read shows him to be brave.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:01
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Im probably one of the fairest people you will ever meet but this is my perception of the situation....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> > yellow belly managed to survive
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>

I'm sure he did, if only an inkling. His mother can never have stopped moaning about how she had been robbed by Richard. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:04
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Liz...exactly...and most likely that he knew that Stanley would betray Richard. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Claire,
>  
> you always give Henry the benefit of the doubt.  I can't because frankly he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  I don't think it takes courage to pinch a crown you're not entitled to  and cause the deaths of good men.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:47
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> > yellow belly managed to survive
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> Well apart form the fact that it's hardly the same situation,

No indeed, Henry felt his life to be personally in danger from whoever was
on the English throne. Although I suppose to some extent that may have been
true in Australia - those of the early settlers who were convicts had been
taken there against their will, and having been forced into that situation
they may have been afraid the natives would spear them if they didn't seize
the upper hand.

> I don't think two (or 200 or 2000) wrongs make this right. We wouldn't
> make excuses for them so why make them for Henry?

Nearly everybody does make excuses for them. How many people, for example,
are proud to be descended from one of the Mayflower families, or from one of
the officers of the Conqueror, although the Normans were a brutal army of
occupation who made Star Chamber look like social work? And you have to
judge people in the context of their culture and what they had been taught
to regard as acceptable.

Also, if evidence turned up that proved that Richard *had* been planning to
invade France, would you then judge him as harshly as Henry? If not, why
not? I don't think we can right the wrong done to Richard by having double
standards and committing wrongs against someone else, either morally or
tactically - it makes us sound shrill and unpleasant and so weakens the case
we make for Richard. It does harm to his memory.

I mean, look at all the people on here jeering at MB for weeping when she
saw her son crowned. This was a victim of childhood rape and childhood
widowhood who had her baby ripped away from her when she was 13 or 14, who
never had another child and must have spent much of the intervening years in
terror that either Edward or the French king was going to kill the only
child she had - why *wouldn't* she weep when she saw her son make good, and
knew that he was finally safe? Wouldn't you if you were her, those of you
who have children?

We all know that the Tudor historians were wrong and that Richard's crooked
spine wasn't a moral fault - but listen to the people on here who think that
Henry's squint is a thing to be jeered at. If *he himself* had sneered at
Richard's wiggly back then one could justly say "Haha, pot calling the
kettle black", but I don't think there's any evidence that he did so.

If MB did good works of a kind which suggest a social conscience then that's
a virtue in her, as it is in Richard - we can't praise the same actions in
the person we like and mock them in the person we don't like and maintain
any credibility, imo. If she *did* have a well-developed social conscience
and wasn't just doing what was expected of a woman of her class, it's odd
that she associated with a rapacious snake like Morton - but as a survivor
of childhood sexual abuse, and one who had probably never received any kind
of psychological help, she may not have had the confidence to assert her own
views to a powerful man.

Oh the irony of it!...it was my contempt and hatred of injustice/unfairness in any shape or form first awoke my initial interest in Richard....sparked off by a magazine articles many moons ago...I can recall thinking 'but that isnt fair!'...anyone who knows me personally will know I always stand up for the underdog...and many a row it has got me into as well :0/
Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Be fair?
>
> It might be more fair to say that it took Henry less courage to do all that to face his obsessed, fanatical mother and say, "If YOU want the bloody crown so much, YOU face the King. I'll stay here and wait to see if you live or die. This is your fight, not mine."
>
> The man could be beaten down by Reginald Bray even after he was king. Between the two of them, Henry didn't stand a chance. I can just hear Bray now: "I brought you your first set of bows and arrows, and they were paid for by your mum. The least you can do to repay us is fall in with our plans to invade, you ungrateful, untrained wretch."
>
> Nope. I think it was easier for Henry to go into battle than to man up and think for himself.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> > as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> > the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> > not.
> >
>

If Richard had been planning to invade France it would be because he believed that he, along with previous English kings, had a legal right to the crown of France. Henry VIII called himself 'King of France'. Henry VII had no such claim to any throne; the Beauforts had been barred from it by Law. Even William the Conqueror believed he was legally entitled to the throne after a promise from the Confessor. Henry VII was an invader commiting treason - an invader, whom his best biographer says, had a squint. Margaret Beaufort was a traitor, who in her grandson's reign, would certainly have paid with her life. You can try to explain the motives of traitors but on this occasion I feel any plea for clemency to a jury would have sadly failed.
To draw comparisons with other countries, other events, is not helpful and not the remit of this forum. Sometimes I do wonder whose side you are on Claire or do you say these things purposely to provoke anger in others?
As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might believe you.
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 10:45
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> Well apart form the fact that it's hardly the same situation,

No indeed, Henry felt his life to be personally in danger from whoever was
on the English throne. Although I suppose to some extent that may have been
true in Australia - those of the early settlers who were convicts had been
taken there against their will, and having been forced into that situation
they may have been afraid the natives would spear them if they didn't seize
the upper hand.

> I don't think two (or 200 or 2000) wrongs make this right. We wouldn't
> make excuses for them so why make them for Henry?

Nearly everybody does make excuses for them. How many people, for example,
are proud to be descended from one of the Mayflower families, or from one of
the officers of the Conqueror, although the Normans were a brutal army of
occupation who made Star Chamber look like social work? And you have to
judge people in the context of their culture and what they had been taught
to regard as acceptable.

Also, if evidence turned up that proved that Richard *had* been planning to
invade France, would you then judge him as harshly as Henry? If not, why
not? I don't think we can right the wrong done to Richard by having double
standards and committing wrongs against someone else, either morally or
tactically - it makes us sound shrill and unpleasant and so weakens the case
we make for Richard. It does harm to his memory.

I mean, look at all the people on here jeering at MB for weeping when she
saw her son crowned. This was a victim of childhood rape and childhood
widowhood who had her baby ripped away from her when she was 13 or 14, who
never had another child and must have spent much of the intervening years in
terror that either Edward or the French king was going to kill the only
child she had - why *wouldn't* she weep when she saw her son make good, and
knew that he was finally safe? Wouldn't you if you were her, those of you
who have children?

We all know that the Tudor historians were wrong and that Richard's crooked
spine wasn't a moral fault - but listen to the people on here who think that
Henry's squint is a thing to be jeered at. If *he himself* had sneered at
Richard's wiggly back then one could justly say "Haha, pot calling the
kettle black", but I don't think there's any evidence that he did so.

If MB did good works of a kind which suggest a social conscience then that's
a virtue in her, as it is in Richard - we can't praise the same actions in
the person we like and mock them in the person we don't like and maintain
any credibility, imo. If she *did* have a well-developed social conscience
and wasn't just doing what was expected of a woman of her class, it's odd
that she associated with a rapacious snake like Morton - but as a survivor
of childhood sexual abuse, and one who had probably never received any kind
of psychological help, she may not have had the confidence to assert her own
views to a powerful man.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> I don't know why you give him the credit for being an 'untrained
> civilian', Claire. He grew up with the Herbert children and was then with
> Uncle Jasper long enough to to talk strategy, if not to get some arms
> practice in,

It's the arms practice which counts, and without it he would have been a
sitting duck. The point is, he wasn't personally equipped to defend
himself, but he went into the battle anyway.

> And by the way, he did feign his illness in St Malo in 1475; his
> biographer says that.

Richard's biographers say lots of things about him which aren't true and I
doubt Henry's are any more reliable, but in any case, why *shouldn't* he
feign illness to save his own life? Wouldn't anybody with an ounce of
sense?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> an invader, whom his best biographer says, had a squint.

And the fact that he had a squint is important how, exactly?

> Margaret Beaufort was a traitor, who in her grandson's reign, would
> certainly have paid with her life.

Nobody is disputing that Henry VIII was a very nasty piece of work!

> To draw comparisons with other countries, other events, is not helpful and
> not the remit of this forum.

I think it's very helpful - you can't judge a situation without its wider
context.

> Sometimes I do wonder whose side you are on Claire or do you say these
> things purposely to provoke anger in others?

No, I say it because I care about truth and fairness, for *everybody*. To
be fair to Richard but bigoted against his enemies isn't fairness - it's
just bigotry re-directed. And I care about Richard very much, have done for
42 years, and I don't think it's in his best interests for his supporters to
come across as a bunch of jeering bigots, because it means that our view of
him won't be taken seriously.

Also, one of the few things in life I care about *more* than Richard is
child abuse and it horrifies me to see people mocking MB for being overcome
with emotion, after the life she had.

> As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another
> Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might
> believe you.

You don't think the man's own skeleton is contemporary evidence?

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> > As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another
> Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might
> believe you.

> You don't think the man's own skeleton is contemporary evidence?

Note btw that I said crooked spine, not crooked back. Uneven shoulders
aside, his *back* would have been straight - but we can see that his spine
meandered about his back like a country road. We know this isn't a moral
fault in him and would leap on anybody who argued that it was - so why is it
OK to jeer at Henry's squint and make a big deal out of it?

Hear, hear to all this

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> > an invader, whom his best biographer says, had a squint.
>
> And the fact that he had a squint is important how, exactly?
>
> > Margaret Beaufort was a traitor, who in her grandson's reign, would
> > certainly have paid with her life.
>
> Nobody is disputing that Henry VIII was a very nasty piece of work!
>
> > To draw comparisons with other countries, other events, is not helpful and
> > not the remit of this forum.
>
> I think it's very helpful - you can't judge a situation without its wider
> context.
>
> > Sometimes I do wonder whose side you are on Claire or do you say these
> > things purposely to provoke anger in others?
>
> No, I say it because I care about truth and fairness, for *everybody*. To
> be fair to Richard but bigoted against his enemies isn't fairness - it's
> just bigotry re-directed. And I care about Richard very much, have done for
> 42 years, and I don't think it's in his best interests for his supporters to
> come across as a bunch of jeering bigots, because it means that our view of
> him won't be taken seriously.
>
> Also, one of the few things in life I care about *more* than Richard is
> child abuse and it horrifies me to see people mocking MB for being overcome
> with emotion, after the life she had.
>
> > As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another
> > Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might
> > believe you.
>
> You don't think the man's own skeleton is contemporary evidence?
>

I don't think anyone would claim martial courage for Henry, but I think just surviving implies a certain resilience.  I don't want to get into whether or not that's admirable in itself (I suppose it's admirable if you like the person; not admirable if you don't; and I find very little to like in Henry), but his early life stands in sharp contrast to our cosseted existences.

Very wise of him to feign illness in St Malo.  I doubt he would have long survived the return journey to England.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 10:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 
I don't know why you give him the credit for being an 'untrained civilian', Claire. He grew up with the Herbert children and was then with Uncle Jasper long enough to to talk strategy, if not to get some arms practice in, even though he was moved from castle to castle by Duke Francis. And by the way, he did feign his illness in St Malo in 1475; his biographer says that. Nothing I've ever read shows him to be brave.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:01
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Im probably one of the fairest people you will ever meet but this is my perception of the situation....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > having managed to get her only son into a dangerous battle situation the
> > yellow belly managed to survive
>
> Be fair - it must have taken huge courage to go into the middle of a battle,
> as an untrained civilian, knowing you were one of the two main targets on
> the field, and just stand and wait to see if you were going to die today or
> not.
>

I think we need to wait to see if they do a proper re-constuction before we speculate about how bad Richard's scoliosis was. I think that it was George's osteologist who said words to the effect that the spinal bones had been spread out separately and might have looked differently if they were connected by tissue and also there was the fact that he had been pushed in to a small space and his head was higher up in the grave than his body therefore curving his spine more.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
> > an invader, whom his best biographer says, had a squint.
>
> And the fact that he had a squint is important how, exactly?
>
> > Margaret Beaufort was a traitor, who in her grandson's reign, would
> > certainly have paid with her life.
>
> Nobody is disputing that Henry VIII was a very nasty piece of work!
>
> > To draw comparisons with other countries, other events, is not helpful and
> > not the remit of this forum.
>
> I think it's very helpful - you can't judge a situation without its wider
> context.
>
> > Sometimes I do wonder whose side you are on Claire or do you say these
> > things purposely to provoke anger in others?
>
> No, I say it because I care about truth and fairness, for *everybody*. To
> be fair to Richard but bigoted against his enemies isn't fairness - it's
> just bigotry re-directed. And I care about Richard very much, have done for
> 42 years, and I don't think it's in his best interests for his supporters to
> come across as a bunch of jeering bigots, because it means that our view of
> him won't be taken seriously.
>
> Also, one of the few things in life I care about *more* than Richard is
> child abuse and it horrifies me to see people mocking MB for being overcome
> with emotion, after the life she had.
>
> > As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another
> > Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might
> > believe you.
>
> You don't think the man's own skeleton is contemporary evidence?
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
>also there was the fact that he had been pushed in to a small space and his head was higher up in the grave than his body therefore curving his spine more
>

I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?

Wouldn't dead bones break or be dislodged - not bend?

The cast in the eye is a fact, his biographer the recent and much admired Thomas Penn, says that it was offputting because 'one eye looked at you and the other searched for you' (Molinet - not jeering biggots). He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native language, though of course he spoke English.
Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic. Any student of the nature of history will tell you it is dangerous and flawed to draw comparisons, despite the oft-flaunted 'Russian invasion' comparisons of Napoleon and Hitler.
There are many posts on this website, mine included, which express sympathy for Henry in certain situations. I do not, however, go as far as condoning treason.
You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not. And I have to say neither does any other historian make such a claim, other than to point out that having a child at an early age could have physicially damaged her. But there are other twelve year olds who have had children, then and since. This is not a forum devoted to discussing child abuse. 
Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence. As many have said on here there are further investigations to be done and the situation clarified. My contemporary was 'his contemporary'. No single friend or enemy in his lifetime ever described him as having anything other than one shoulder higher than another. When you can produce for me one such piece of evidence from a reputable source I will re-consider. 
 
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 11:44
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> an invader, whom his best biographer says, had a squint.

And the fact that he had a squint is important how, exactly?

> Margaret Beaufort was a traitor, who in her grandson's reign, would
> certainly have paid with her life.

Nobody is disputing that Henry VIII was a very nasty piece of work!

> To draw comparisons with other countries, other events, is not helpful and
> not the remit of this forum.

I think it's very helpful - you can't judge a situation without its wider
context.

> Sometimes I do wonder whose side you are on Claire or do you say these
> things purposely to provoke anger in others?

No, I say it because I care about truth and fairness, for *everybody*. To
be fair to Richard but bigoted against his enemies isn't fairness - it's
just bigotry re-directed. And I care about Richard very much, have done for
42 years, and I don't think it's in his best interests for his supporters to
come across as a bunch of jeering bigots, because it means that our view of
him won't be taken seriously.

Also, one of the few things in life I care about *more* than Richard is
child abuse and it horrifies me to see people mocking MB for being overcome
with emotion, after the life she had.

> As for Richard's crooked spine - what crooked spine - is it another
> Richard? Show me the contemporary evidence to that effect and I might
> believe you.

You don't think the man's own skeleton is contemporary evidence?

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


> I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's
> spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?

If the vertebrae were already tending to be displaced out to the side I
think that as the bones shuggled down into the bottom of the grave under
their own weight, from a sitting start, the vertebrae would tend to get
pushed more out to the side than they were to start with. But only if the
curve was pretty marked to begin with, and there's no way that curve is
*all* or even mostly due to displacment, because it has a clearly defined
start and stop, plus we know it was severe enough in life to result in
uneven shoulders.

> I don't think it's in his best interests for his supporters to
> come across as a bunch of jeering bigots, because it means that our view
> of
> him won't be taken seriously.

Further to this, just to clarify, in order to convince other people -
including Tudor supporters - that Richard was a good man, we have to be able
to show that we can be as far as possibly completely unbiased, objective and
disinterested and *still* come up with the answer that Richard was an
unusually civilised creature who was about 300 years ahead of his time. And
I think we can.

Regarding relations between Cecily and MB, or between Cecily and Henry, they
may not have been as hostile as we would now expect. This bears on a thread
somebody started a few weeks ago about Mediaeval women's attitudes.

Think about EoY and her sisters. Whatever happened to their little
brothers, Richard had without question executed their uncle Anthony and one
of their half-brothers and yet this doesn't seem to have presented them with
any problems with trustung and even liking him. Somebody correct me if
there's evidence that I'm wrong, but my impression is that people of high
rank in those days were very aware that politics was a high-stakes game and
that the losers often died, and didn't resent the winners nearly as much as
one would expect nowadays, even when it was their nearest and dearest who
had ended up dead on the block or the battlefield.

As stated many times, by many people......the remains of Richard III need a comprehensive case study taking in time between death and discovery, burial position, scoliosis, and all the other variables. Not enough has been published to give us enough scientific information, to even hazard a guess.
Also, we who care deeply, and for the most part tread carefully, through the books currently available, can only imagine the real life characters of the many players in this tale. Again, without unbiased documentation (is there ever unbiased documentation) we simply do not know.
I certainly haven't a clue about who owned what, and if they paid rent or merely occupied the space gratis, or even confiscated them "in the name of the crown". Not being a citizen of Britain, I am even more untutored about property rights, especially with regard to "Crown Possession".
I can comment on those who left Britain for better or worse. Many fled religious persecution, or incarceration. Many came as indentured servants. And some came for greener pastures, but were still loyal of the Crown. Don't forget, many people living in the colonies were not in support of the American Revolution. And, finally, most of us who find ancestors born or living in Britain, find them to be humble or quite poor.
The members of our group who are under 40, may live to see, hear and read many revelations. Many of us who are in are 60's or upward, may not be around. We are seeing history in the making, history rewritten, or history as is, re investigated and viewed in a completely new light.


On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: pansydobersby
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's
> spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?

If the vertebrae were already tending to be displaced out to the side I
think that as the bones shuggled down into the bottom of the grave under
their own weight, from a sitting start, the vertebrae would tend to get
pushed more out to the side than they were to start with. But only if the
curve was pretty marked to begin with, and there's no way that curve is
*all* or even mostly due to displacment, because it has a clearly defined
start and stop, plus we know it was severe enough in life to result in
uneven shoulders.

Marvellously said Pamela.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

As stated many times, by many people......the remains of Richard III need a comprehensive case study taking in time between death and discovery, burial position, scoliosis, and all the other variables. Not enough has been published to give us enough scientific information, to even hazard a guess.
Also, we who care deeply, and for the most part tread carefully, through the books currently available, can only imagine the real life characters of the many players in this tale. Again, without unbiased documentation (is there ever unbiased documentation) we simply do not know.
I certainly haven't a clue about who owned what, and if they paid rent or merely occupied the space gratis, or even confiscated them "in the name of the crown".  Not being a citizen of Britain, I am even more untutored about property rights, especially with regard to "Crown Possession".
I can comment on those who left Britain for better or worse. Many fled religious persecution, or incarceration. Many came as indentured servants. And some came for greener pastures, but were still loyal of the Crown. Don't forget, many people living in the colonies were not in support of the American Revolution. And, finally, most of us who find ancestors born or living in Britain, find them to be humble or quite poor.
The members of our group who are under 40, may live to see, hear and read many revelations. Many of us who are in are 60's or upward, may not be around. We are seeing history in the making, history rewritten, or history as is, re investigated and viewed in a completely new light.


On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: pansydobersby
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's
> spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?

If the vertebrae were already tending to be displaced out to the side I
think that as the bones shuggled down into the bottom of the grave under
their own weight, from a sitting start, the vertebrae would tend to get
pushed more out to the side than they were to start with. But only if the
curve was pretty marked to begin with, and there's no way that curve is
*all* or even mostly due to displacment, because it has a clearly defined
start and stop, plus we know it was severe enough in life to result in
uneven shoulders.









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> The cast in the eye is a fact,

I'm not disputing it, just saying that it's of no relevance to anything
except insofar as it may help explain why he didn't apparently ever learn to
fight. If he had personally mocked Richard's slight deformity - which so
far as I know he didn't - then one might say "Pot calling the kettle black"
and that it made him a hypocrite, but otherwise it's no more important than
that his eyes were blue. And they both had bad teeth!

> He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native
> language,

Now that's interesting - and makes his invasion more justifiable because it
confirms that he would see England as a threatening enemy state, as well as
threatening him personally. If he was effectively French then he was no
more a traitor than Napoleon - just more successful.

> Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to
> Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic.

Henry had to fear that that the English king would kill him if he didn't
take the throne. The American settlers settled in part in order to be
allowed to repress - one of their earliest acts was to execute a Quaker just
for being a Quaker - and they took their country from its former owners with
considerably more catastrophic results than Henry's invasion.

> You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not.

As has been pointed out, however, she came with lands which could be
obtained by having sex with her, it was abnormal even in those days to have
sex with a girl that young and her subsequent history suggests she wasn't a
very sexual being, so it's far more likely than not imo that it was rape.

> Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence.

I'm sorry, I think that's frankly silly - and an insult to Richard. You're
saying to that nice boy with his wiggly back "You're not good enough the way
you are; you're not worthy of admiration unless you're physically perfect".

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Very noxious! Plumes of black smoke and melted handles. Didn't taste too good.

Carol responds:

Still, it's his own fault for putting the tools in the oven without so much as a Post-It note to tell you what he'd done! (I know that smell. I once managed to absent-mindedly melt a teakettle handle.)

Carol

Richard's teeth look good all by the standards of the day, Claire. He might well have had trouble in a few years but since I''m not a dentist I don't know how badly.
 
Henry's teeth were apparently black and few of them and noticeably so. 
 
. 

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
 
Snip >  . And they both had bad teeth!

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"No indeed, Henry felt his life to be personally in danger from whoever was
on the English throne."
//snip//

How much of that "danger" was due to Henry's actions, as opposed to who he
was?
Isn't there a difference between wanting Henry back in England in order to
keep an eye on someone who'd been associating with traitors? Henry's age
when he first left England would, I would think, have precluded Edward IV
treating Henry as a traitor, if/when Henry returned, but still someone to
keep an eye on.
However, "keeping an eye on" *isn't* the same as wanting to get hold of
someone to have them executed. It's what Henry *did* himself, that put his
life in danger; that and the actions of people such as his mother.
Henry didn't *have* to associate with Oxford and the like, he could have
lived a quiet life in Brittany on money supplied by his mother; that latter
action being accepted by Edward or Richard *as long as Henry remained
a-political*. I've probably phrased it badly, but it does seem to me that,
had Henry "kept his nose clean" he would have been allowed to return to
England.
Henry, apparently, chose not to.
Doug

Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him less appealing. I doubt his inability or lack of will to fight had anything to do with it, more likely that hanging around Breton courts wasn't the same as being in training at Middleham. But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to justify some theory
Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than for linguistic and cultural purposes. He didn't like Latin documents (probably couldn't read them very well). In fact Francis of Brittany used him as a threat against Louis XI. And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he stay there and invite mother? Why wasn't he sitting at Louis's elbow at the Treaty of Picquigny? And why did Louis hand him over?
Why was Napoleon a traitor? You've lost me there. As I've said before revolution/rebellion is a different area entirely which I've studied in some depth and is not relevant to what we're discussing here, unless you're trying to say that Henry VII was the leader of a populist movement? I can think of no greater Frenchman than Napoleon.
 Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not commit treason against their King, Henry Tudor did.
And please read my comments to other posters about the skeleton and don't put words into my mouth. I don't actually care whether Richard had one eye and no arm - I know of one hero who did - but it's right that the truth should be known, and until the experts make a proper report we don't know at the moment. Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance his reputation.  

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> The cast in the eye is a fact,

I'm not disputing it, just saying that it's of no relevance to anything
except insofar as it may help explain why he didn't apparently ever learn to
fight. If he had personally mocked Richard's slight deformity - which so
far as I know he didn't - then one might say "Pot calling the kettle black"
and that it made him a hypocrite, but otherwise it's no more important than
that his eyes were blue. And they both had bad teeth!

> He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native
> language,

Now that's interesting - and makes his invasion more justifiable because it
confirms that he would see England as a threatening enemy state, as well as
threatening him personally. If he was effectively French then he was no
more a traitor than Napoleon - just more successful.

> Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to
> Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic.

Henry had to fear that that the English king would kill him if he didn't
take the throne. The American settlers settled in part in order to be
allowed to repress - one of their earliest acts was to execute a Quaker just
for being a Quaker - and they took their country from its former owners with
considerably more catastrophic results than Henry's invasion.

> You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not.

As has been pointed out, however, she came with lands which could be
obtained by having sex with her, it was abnormal even in those days to have
sex with a girl that young and her subsequent history suggests she wasn't a
very sexual being, so it's far more likely than not imo that it was rape.

> Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence.

I'm sorry, I think that's frankly silly - and an insult to Richard. You're
saying to that nice boy with his wiggly back "You're not good enough the way
you are; you're not worthy of admiration unless you're physically perfect".

That's exactly right. If you were prepared to wait long enough Edward was quite generous. But you had to wait - some 1478 petitioners for attainder reversal go back to 1461 - and Henry clearly wasn't; which proved just where his ambitions lay.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 18:39
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 


Claire M Jordan wrote:

"No indeed, Henry felt his life to be personally in danger from whoever was
on the English throne."
//snip//

How much of that "danger" was due to Henry's actions, as opposed to who he
was?
Isn't there a difference between wanting Henry back in England in order to
keep an eye on someone who'd been associating with traitors? Henry's age
when he first left England would, I would think, have precluded Edward IV
treating Henry as a traitor, if/when Henry returned, but still someone to
keep an eye on.
However, "keeping an eye on" *isn't* the same as wanting to get hold of
someone to have them executed. It's what Henry *did* himself, that put his
life in danger; that and the actions of people such as his mother.
Henry didn't *have* to associate with Oxford and the like, he could have
lived a quiet life in Brittany on money supplied by his mother; that latter
action being accepted by Edward or Richard *as long as Henry remained
a-political*. I've probably phrased it badly, but it does seem to me that,
had Henry "kept his nose clean" he would have been allowed to return to
England.
Henry, apparently, chose not to.
Doug

Hilary is that Penn book any good? I saw it in a second-hand book shop a while ago for £3
in very good condition...but couldnt bring myself to buy it especially with Weasle's portrait on the front...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him less appealing. I doubt his inability or lack of will to fight had anything to do with it, more likely that hanging around Breton courts wasn't the same as being in training at Middleham. But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to justify some theory
> Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than for linguistic and cultural purposes. He didn't like Latin documents (probably couldn't read them very well). In fact Francis of Brittany used him as a threat against Louis XI. And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he stay there and invite mother? Why wasn't he sitting at Louis's elbow at the Treaty of Picquigny? And why did Louis hand him over?
> Why was Napoleon a traitor? You've lost me there. As I've said before revolution/rebellion is a different area entirely which I've studied in some depth and is not relevant to what we're discussing here, unless you're trying to say that Henry VII was the leader of a populist movement? I can think of no greater Frenchman than Napoleon.
>  Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not commit treason against their King, Henry Tudor did.
> And please read my comments to other posters about the skeleton and don't put words into my mouth. I don't actually care whether Richard had one eye and no arm - I know of one hero who did - but it's right that the truth should be known, and until the experts make a proper report we don't know at the moment. Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance his reputation.  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > The cast in the eye is a fact,
>
> I'm not disputing it, just saying that it's of no relevance to anything
> except insofar as it may help explain why he didn't apparently ever learn to
> fight. If he had personally mocked Richard's slight deformity - which so
> far as I know he didn't - then one might say "Pot calling the kettle black"
> and that it made him a hypocrite, but otherwise it's no more important than
> that his eyes were blue. And they both had bad teeth!
>
> > He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native
> > language,
>
> Now that's interesting - and makes his invasion more justifiable because it
> confirms that he would see England as a threatening enemy state, as well as
> threatening him personally. If he was effectively French then he was no
> more a traitor than Napoleon - just more successful.
>
> > Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to
> > Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic.
>
> Henry had to fear that that the English king would kill him if he didn't
> take the throne. The American settlers settled in part in order to be
> allowed to repress - one of their earliest acts was to execute a Quaker just
> for being a Quaker - and they took their country from its former owners with
> considerably more catastrophic results than Henry's invasion.
>
> > You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not.
>
> As has been pointed out, however, she came with lands which could be
> obtained by having sex with her, it was abnormal even in those days to have
> sex with a girl that young and her subsequent history suggests she wasn't a
> very sexual being, so it's far more likely than not imo that it was rape.
>
> > Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence.
>
> I'm sorry, I think that's frankly silly - and an insult to Richard. You're
> saying to that nice boy with his wiggly back "You're not good enough the way
> you are; you're not worthy of admiration unless you're physically perfect".
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lots of ifs and buts there, unfortunately. Objectively, what you say makes perfect sense, Doug, but subjectively many of the participants probably felt caught in a game of kill or be killed. Tudor was manipulated by both France and Brittany, so an apolitical exile would have been impossible, short of entering the Church.

Also, hadn't Edward referred to him as the sole surviving sprig of Lancaster (forgive the paraphrasing)? I think the tramlines had been set and it would have taken a major leap of faith from both sides to change the course.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I would say it is, because as a lot of reviewers said at the time, it's not the result of hero-worship.  Most biographers get close to their subjects, I suppose living with them for months you can't help it? But you can tell Penn really struggles to like this guy, but tries to do a fair deal by him; he may admire some aspects of his rule, but he doesn't particularly like him and he certainly doesn't love him. Interesting he says that More made a faux pas in 1504 and nearly got taken out! Yes for that price it's worth it and like Jones and Underwood it throws a bit more light on EOY and MB, although they depart fairly early on. Does mention EOY and her gambling! I wish someone this good would do a biography on Richard.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:53
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces


 

Hilary is that Penn book any good? I saw it in a second-hand book shop a while ago for £3
in very good condition...but couldnt bring myself to buy it especially with Weasle's portrait on the front...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him less appealing. I doubt his inability or lack of will to fight had anything to do with it, more likely that hanging around Breton courts wasn't the same as being in training at Middleham. But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to justify some theory
> Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than for linguistic and cultural purposes. He didn't like Latin documents (probably couldn't read them very well). In fact Francis of Brittany used him as a threat against Louis XI. And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he stay there and invite mother? Why wasn't he sitting at Louis's elbow at the Treaty of Picquigny? And why did Louis hand him over?
> Why was Napoleon a traitor? You've lost me there. As I've said before revolution/rebellion is a different area entirely which I've studied in some depth and is not relevant to what we're discussing here, unless you're trying to say that Henry VII was the leader of a populist movement? I can think of no greater Frenchman than Napoleon.
>  Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not commit treason against their King, Henry Tudor did.
> And please read my comments to other posters about the skeleton and don't put words into my mouth. I don't actually care whether Richard had one eye and no arm - I know of one hero who did - but it's right that the truth should be known, and until the experts make a proper report we don't know at the moment. Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance his reputation.  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > The cast in the eye is a fact,
>
> I'm not disputing it, just saying that it's of no relevance to anything
> except insofar as it may help explain why he didn't apparently ever learn to
> fight. If he had personally mocked Richard's slight deformity - which so
> far as I know he didn't - then one might say "Pot calling the kettle black"
> and that it made him a hypocrite, but otherwise it's no more important than
> that his eyes were blue. And they both had bad teeth!
>
> > He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native
> > language,
>
> Now that's interesting - and makes his invasion more justifiable because it
> confirms that he would see England as a threatening enemy state, as well as
> threatening him personally. If he was effectively French then he was no
> more a traitor than Napoleon - just more successful.
>
> > Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to
> > Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic.
>
> Henry had to fear that that the English king would kill him if he didn't
> take the throne. The American settlers settled in part in order to be
> allowed to repress - one of their earliest acts was to execute a Quaker just
> for being a Quaker - and they took their country from its former owners with
> considerably more catastrophic results than Henry's invasion.
>
> > You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not.
>
> As has been pointed out, however, she came with lands which could be
> obtained by having sex with her, it was abnormal even in those days to have
> sex with a girl that young and her subsequent history suggests she wasn't a
> very sexual being, so it's far more likely than not imo that it was rape.
>
> > Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence.
>
> I'm sorry, I think that's frankly silly - and an insult to Richard. You're
> saying to that nice boy with his wiggly back "You're not good enough the way
> you are; you're not worthy of admiration unless you're physically perfect".
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know. From what I remember from the programme each bone was separate and I am just thinking that if his spine was curved because he had been pushed into the grave withhis back curved just to get him into the space is that how the bones would look when all the flesh, muscles,etc disintegrated. Did they do any scientific tests to prove that he had scoliosis. Indeed are there tests that can prove he had scoliosis. Hopefully the next programme will tell us more.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> >also there was the fact that he had been pushed in to a small space and his head was higher up in the grave than his body therefore curving his spine more
> >
>
> I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?
>
> Wouldn't dead bones break or be dislodged - not bend?
>

Yes Henry VI's last 'imp'. And Jasper was forever referred to by Edward as the previous Earl of Pembroke. Perhaps if Jasper had been more concilliatory? 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: Richard III Society Forum <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:55
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

Lots of ifs and buts there, unfortunately. Objectively, what you say makes perfect sense, Doug, but subjectively many of the participants probably felt caught in a game of kill or be killed. Tudor was manipulated by both France and Brittany, so an apolitical exile would have been impossible, short of entering the Church.

Also, hadn't Edward referred to him as the sole surviving sprig of Lancaster (forgive the paraphrasing)? I think the tramlines had been set and it would have taken a major leap of faith from both sides to change the course.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Thanks - yes, that's it. Couldn't think whether it was "sprig" or "imp" - perils of doing this on a phone while commuting!

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Thanks - yes, that's it. Couldn't think whether it was "sprig" or "imp" - perils of doing this on a phone while commuting!

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Thank you Hilary...I shall buy it then.....second hand copy shouldnt be too much...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I would say it is, because as a lot of reviewers said at the time, it's not the result of hero-worship.  Most biographers get close to their subjects, I suppose living with them for months you can't help it? But you can tell Penn really struggles to like this guy, but tries to do a fair deal by him; he may admire some aspects of his rule, but he doesn't particularly like him and he certainly doesn't love him. Interesting he says that More made a faux pas in 1504 and nearly got taken out! Yes for that price it's worth it and like Jones and Underwood it throws a bit more light on EOY and MB, although they depart fairly early on. Does mention EOY and her gambling! I wish someone this good would do a biography on Richard.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:53
> Subject: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary is that Penn book any good? I saw it in a second-hand book shop a while ago for £3
> in very good condition...but couldnt bring myself to buy it especially with Weasle's portrait on the front...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him less appealing. I doubt his inability or lack of will to fight had anything to do with it, more likely that hanging around Breton courts wasn't the same as being in training at Middleham. But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to justify some theory
> > Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than for linguistic and cultural purposes. He didn't like Latin documents (probably couldn't read them very well). In fact Francis of Brittany used him as a threat against Louis XI. And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he stay there and invite mother? Why wasn't he sitting at Louis's elbow at the Treaty of Picquigny? And why did Louis hand him over?
> > Why was Napoleon a traitor? You've lost me there. As I've said before revolution/rebellion is a different area entirely which I've studied in some depth and is not relevant to what we're discussing here, unless you're trying to say that Henry VII was the leader of a populist movement? I can think of no greater Frenchman than Napoleon.
> >  Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not commit treason against their King, Henry Tudor did.
> > And please read my comments to other posters about the skeleton and don't put words into my mouth. I don't actually care whether Richard had one eye and no arm - I know of one hero who did - but it's right that the truth should be known, and until the experts make a proper report we don't know at the moment. Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance his reputation.  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:40
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> >  
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
> >
> > > The cast in the eye is a fact,
> >
> > I'm not disputing it, just saying that it's of no relevance to anything
> > except insofar as it may help explain why he didn't apparently ever learn to
> > fight. If he had personally mocked Richard's slight deformity - which so
> > far as I know he didn't - then one might say "Pot calling the kettle black"
> > and that it made him a hypocrite, but otherwise it's no more important than
> > that his eyes were blue. And they both had bad teeth!
> >
> > > He also considered himself a Frenchman and French was always his native
> > > language,
> >
> > Now that's interesting - and makes his invasion more justifiable because it
> > confirms that he would see England as a threatening enemy state, as well as
> > threatening him personally. If he was effectively French then he was no
> > more a traitor than Napoleon - just more successful.
> >
> > > Comparing American settlers who were themselves fleeing repression to
> > > Henry's invasion in 1485 lacks historical logic.
> >
> > Henry had to fear that that the English king would kill him if he didn't
> > take the throne. The American settlers settled in part in order to be
> > allowed to repress - one of their earliest acts was to execute a Quaker just
> > for being a Quaker - and they took their country from its former owners with
> > considerably more catastrophic results than Henry's invasion.
> >
> > > You never met MB so you don't know whether she was abused or not.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, however, she came with lands which could be
> > obtained by having sex with her, it was abnormal even in those days to have
> > sex with a girl that young and her subsequent history suggests she wasn't a
> > very sexual being, so it's far more likely than not imo that it was rape.
> >
> > > Finally, no I don't consider the skeleton provides adequate evidence.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I think that's frankly silly - and an insult to Richard. You're
> > saying to that nice boy with his wiggly back "You're not good enough the way
> > you are; you're not worthy of admiration unless you're physically perfect".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jonathan Evans wrote:

"Lots of ifs and buts there, unfortunately. Objectively, what you say makes
perfect sense, Doug, but subjectively many of the participants probably felt
caught in a game of kill or be killed. Tudor was manipulated by both France
and Brittany, so an apolitical exile would have been impossible, short of
entering the Church.
Also, hadn't Edward referred to him as the sole surviving sprig of Lancaster
(forgive the paraphrasing)? I think the tramlines had been set and it would
have taken a major leap of faith from both sides to change the course."

Doug here:
I'd forgotten about that reference (close enough no doubt).
I do have reservations about your "Tudor was manipulated by both France and
Brittany, so an apolitical exile would have been impossible...", however.
What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England? After all, he was only
valuable to them alive, which brings me back to Henry being a "willing*
pawn...
Doug
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> Richard's teeth look good all by the standards of the day, Claire.

The ones he'd *got* were good, if a bit worn, but several are missing and
accto Leicester Uni some of those were lost to dental caries, so they
probably rotted before they were drawn!

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> How much of that "danger" was due to Henry's actions, as opposed to who he
was?

See, that's what I asked, but nobody answered. Was he already a danger and
that was why Edward tried to get his hands on him, or did he become a danger
*because* Edward tried to get his hands on him.

> Isn't there a difference between wanting Henry back in England in order to
keep an eye on someone who'd been associating with traitors? Henry's age
when he first left England would, I would think, have precluded Edward IV
treating Henry as a traitor, if/when Henry returned, but still someone to
keep an eye on.

If you're right about that (and if Henry knew it) then I agree with you, but
when this was mentioned before, the consensus seemed to be that Edward was
either planning to kill Henry or to imprison him for life, and the death of
Henry VI can't have encouraged young Henry to expect the best. If he could
have been got back and given a supervised job that would have been perfect,
but it seems to me that he had every reason to expect that Edward was trying
to get him to kill him.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him
less appealing.

But other people on this list, apparently with knowledge of the condition,
then said that it would ahve caused him to have difficulty focusing.

> But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to
> justify some theory

Without leaps of imagination we would all still be sitting around naked in
caves picking fleas off each other.

> Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than
> for linguistic and cultural purposes.

Then you should have stated this more clearly.

> And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he
> stay there and invite mother?

I asked that a few days ago - why didn't she go join him on the continent? -
but nobody answered.

> Why was Napoleon a traitor?

He wasn't - and if Henry was effectively a Frenchman then neither was he.

> Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not
> commit treason against their King,

Actually we agred that they did, but in this case my point was that they
felt perfectly justified in marching into someone else's country and taking
it by force, because people saw these things differently then. And the
morality of the situation doesn't change just because the victim was
somebody we like.

> Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance
> his reputation.

You don't think it's good for his reputation to say that he was pleasant and
likeable and coped well with a minor but probably painful disability?

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Absolutely.  Cut their losses and sell him back.  There was nothing charitable about the funding he received, and he would have been well aware of the precariousness of his situation.

That's not to say that Henry wasn't also trying to use *them* - just that there were lots of competing forces at work.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

"but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Some of the individual vertebrae are deformed indicating that the curvature
had developed over time & while Richard was alive.

A J

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I don't know. From what I remember from the programme each bone was
> separate and I am just thinking that if his spine was curved because he had
> been pushed into the grave withhis back curved just to get him into the
> space is that how the bones would look when all the flesh, muscles,etc
> disintegrated. Did they do any scientific tests to prove that he had
> scoliosis. Indeed are there tests that can prove he had scoliosis.
> Hopefully the next programme will tell us more.
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >also there was the fact that he had been pushed in to a small space and
> his head was higher up in the grave than his body therefore curving his
> spine more
> > >
> >
> > I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's
> spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?
> >
> > Wouldn't dead bones break or be dislodged - not bend?
> >
>
>
>

Would that have made much difference?  He was potentially a valuable commodity and could have been used in any kind of international horse-trading, direct or indirect.  Did Henry VIII actively pursue Richard de la Pole?

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 
"but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Surely Mummy kept him supplied with money too!!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> > he
> simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?
>
> Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
> in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
> seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
> starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:29 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Marvellously said Pamela.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

As stated many times, by many people......the remains of Richard III need a comprehensive case study taking in time between death and discovery, burial position, scoliosis, and all the other variables. Not enough has been published to give us enough scientific information, to even hazard a guess.
Also, we who care deeply, and for the most part tread carefully, through the books currently available, can only imagine the real life characters of the many players in this tale. Again, without unbiased documentation (is there ever unbiased documentation) we simply do not know.
I certainly haven't a clue about who owned what, and if they paid rent or merely occupied the space gratis, or even confiscated them "in the name of the crown". Not being a citizen of Britain, I am even more untutored about property rights, especially with regard to "Crown Possession".
I can comment on those who left Britain for better or worse. Many fled religious persecution, or incarceration. Many came as indentured servants. And some came for greener pastures, but were still loyal of the Crown. Don't forget, many people living in the colonies were not in support of the American Revolution. And, finally, most of us who find ancestors born or living in Britain, find them to be humble or quite poor.
The members of our group who are under 40, may live to see, hear and read many revelations. Many of us who are in are 60's or upward, may not be around. We are seeing history in the making, history rewritten, or history as is, re investigated and viewed in a completely new light.

On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com><mailto:whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>> wrote:

From: pansydobersby
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's nieces

> I keep harping on this, but is this actually possible? A living person's
> spine would certainly bend over time, but would a dead spine 'curve'?

If the vertebrae were already tending to be displaced out to the side I
think that as the bones shuggled down into the bottom of the grave under
their own weight, from a sitting start, the vertebrae would tend to get
pushed more out to the side than they were to start with. But only if the
curve was pretty marked to begin with, and there's no way that curve is
*all* or even mostly due to displacment, because it has a clearly defined
start and stop, plus we know it was severe enough in life to result in
uneven shoulders.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

But Italy - just as an example - didn't have the same self interest that France did.
 
As for Richard de la Pole, I have no idea whether Henry VIII pursued him or not. 

 

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
Would that have made much difference?  He was potentially a valuable commodity and could have been used in any kind of international horse-trading, direct or indirect.  Did Henry VIII actively pursue Richard de la Pole?

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 
"but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Almost certainly, yes, although I can't cite a source. I am certain that he pursued Lord Richard's cousin, Reginald Pole.

PS Please will everyone call R de la P LORD Richard to help differentiate them. Thankyou.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces



But Italy - just as an example - didn't have the same self interest that France did.

As for Richard de la Pole, I have no idea whether Henry VIII pursued him or not.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: ">
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


Would that have made much difference? He was potentially a valuable commodity and could have been used in any kind of international horse-trading, direct or indirect. Did Henry VIII actively pursue Richard de la Pole?

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


"but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else? To Italy say? He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Eye cast - well you yourself are into great leaps of imagination, so others did the same
Frenchman - you jumped to that conclusion without asking for clarification
Henry was not a Frenchman because he spoke French. He wasn't born there - he was a traitor
Are we talking about American settlers in the sixteenth century or those who drew up the Declaration of Independence in the eighteenth century? I thought you were talking about the former. In either case this is not relevant to Richard or Henry VII
I don't at the moment know about the degree of pain or disability so I can't comment. 
I can't say whether he was pleasant and likeable, I never met him.  Did you, and you apparently know the crown was heavy to wear? But it would appear his intentions were good and ahead of his time which is why I support him.
Revolution/rebellion populist movements are quite different from invasion, which is something you seem to have found difficult to grasp in this whole discussion. There are several good books on this I'd recommend Rude's Crowd in History for a start.
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:20
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> Penn doesn't say his eye cast is a disability; just that it made him
less appealing.

But other people on this list, apparently with knowledge of the condition,
then said that it would ahve caused him to have difficulty focusing.

> But I don't know and am not prepared to make great leaps of imagination to
> justify some theory

Without leaps of imagination we would all still be sitting around naked in
caves picking fleas off each other.

> Penn doesn't imply that Henry thought of himself as a Frenchman other than
> for linguistic and cultural purposes.

Then you should have stated this more clearly.

> And if he thought himself French in the nationalistic sense why didn't he
> stay there and invite mother?

I asked that a few days ago - why didn't she go join him on the continent? -
but nobody answered.

> Why was Napoleon a traitor?

He wasn't - and if Henry was effectively a Frenchman then neither was he.

> Neither are American settlers relevant to this discussion. They did not
> commit treason against their King,

Actually we agred that they did, but in this case my point was that they
felt perfectly justified in marching into someone else's country and taking
it by force, because people saw these things differently then. And the
morality of the situation doesn't change just because the victim was
somebody we like.

> Certainly words like 'nice boy' and 'wiggly back' don't help to enhance
> his reputation.

You don't think it's good for his reputation to say that he was pleasant and
likeable and coped well with a minor but probably painful disability?

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:57
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> But Italy - just as an example - didn't have the same self interest that France did.


And that's why I say diplomatic horse-trading could be indirect, as well as direct, and Henry was undoubtedly a significant figure - or, at least, one that could be made to appear significant if you had an agenda...

Re Claire, I don't think she's excusing behaviour - just trying to explain it.  That's a very different thing.  Someone - it may have been Eileen - said how horrible it was that Margaret Beaufort didn't return Richard's Book of Hours to Cecily Neville.  Well, yes, to our sensibilities it was.  But if you put yourself in the position of someone to whom damnation is viscerally real, it becomes a little different.  You've undertaken a course of action which, if you're *not* right, *is* damnable.  And if you let human sympathy distract you, you risk your entire world-view collapsing.  That's not justification; merely an explanation of why people who see themselves as virtuous can do appalling things.  And if Margaret was prone to tears, maybe that's a sign of cracks in the foundations of the edifice she constructed.

One thing you can say about all the Tudors is that they were deeply damaged people.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:57
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 
But Italy - just as an example - didn't have the same self interest that France did.
 
As for Richard de la Pole, I have no idea whether Henry VIII pursued him or not. 

 

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: ">
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
Would that have made much difference?  He was potentially a valuable commodity and could have been used in any kind of international horse-trading, direct or indirect.  Did Henry VIII actively pursue Richard de la Pole?

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
"but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

> What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> he
simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?

Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.

Jonathan..yes it was me made that comment....It tells me a lot about MBs character. Having said that your comment make a lot of sense to me...I would call it trying to 'square things' up in your head..usually when someone is trying to excuse their bad behaviour to themselves..on the lines of what you are saying really but a thing that people do today but without the fear of eternal damnation...

Oh what a tangled web we weave...
When we practice to deceive...

Eileen


--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
.
> it may have been Eileen - said how horrible it was that Margaret Beaufort didn't return Richard's Book of Hours to Cecily Neville.  Well, yes, to our sensibilities it was.  But if you put yourself in the position of someone to whom damnation is viscerally real, it becomes a little different.  You've undertaken a course of action which, if you're *not* right, *is* damnable.  And if you let human sympathy distract you, you risk your entire world-view collapsing.  That's not justification; merely an explanation of why people who see themselves as virtuous can do appalling things.  And if Margaret was prone to tears, maybe that's a sign of cracks in the foundations of the edifice she constructed.
>
> One thing you can say about all the Tudors is that they were deeply damaged people.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:57
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>
>  
> But Italy - just as an example - didn't have the same self interest that France did.
>  
> As for Richard de la Pole, I have no idea whether Henry VIII pursued him or not. 
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "@[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:47
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> Would that have made much difference?  He was potentially a valuable commodity and could have been used in any kind of international horse-trading, direct or indirect.  Did Henry VIII actively pursue Richard de la Pole?
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:34
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> "but" as has been asked here, why didn't he move somewhere else?  To Italy say?  He wasn't a prisoner and I suspect that if he'd really wanted to, he could have gone. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:31
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
>  
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces
>
> > What would the powers-that-be in France and/or Brittany *do* to Henry if
> > he
> simply refused to be *their* pawn against England?
>
> Wrap him up in brown paper and string and offer him to England as a present
> in return for concessions? Stop feeding and clothing him, certainly, and he
> seems to have had no marketable skills. It would have been the church or
> starve, and maybe he didn't fancy celibacy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

ricard1an wrote:

"Surely Mummy kept him supplied with money too!!"

Doug here:
Is there any surviving evidence that MB *did* send Henry money?
Maybe I'm being too 20th-century about it, but I find it difficult to
believe that *something* couldn't have been worked out so that Henry could
live quietly in France, perhaps even with the odd visit from MB - so long as
he disassociated himself from Lancastrians such as Oxford and the like. A
sort of probation?
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that *Henry* either chose to place
himself at the head of the "Lancastrian" opposition or made no effort to
disassociate himself from them - we don't know which. And as Henry was the
*only* English national with even a hint of a Lancastrian claim and if *he*
decided , or agreed with Edward/Richard, not play politics, what would any
of the Lancastrians do - kill him? Kidnap him and send him off to
Edward/Richard?
The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug

According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue them from a tyrant.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>

 


The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug

Well patently "not" acceptable to Mummy .  Yes I think you're right.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 


Doug here:
Is there any surviving evidence that MB *did* send Henry money?
Maybe I'm being too 20th-century about it, but I find it difficult to
believe that *something* couldn't have been worked out so that Henry could
live quietly in France, perhaps even with the odd visit from MB - so long as
he disassociated himself from Lancastrians such as Oxford and the like. A
sort of probation?
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that *Henry* either chose to place
himself at the head of the "Lancastrian" opposition or made no effort to
disassociate himself from them - we don't know which. And as Henry was the
*only* English national with even a hint of a Lancastrian claim and if *he*
decided , or agreed with Edward/Richard, not play politics, what would any
of the Lancastrians do - kill him? Kidnap him and send him off to
Edward/Richard?
The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

"Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable."



It's the civilised option, but I just don't see it as realistic.

Are there any examples of rival claimants living in peaceful co-existence?

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 

ricard1an wrote:

"Surely Mummy kept him supplied with money too!!"

Doug here:
Is there any surviving evidence that MB *did* send Henry money?
Maybe I'm being too 20th-century about it, but I find it difficult to
believe that *something* couldn't have been worked out so that Henry could
live quietly in France, perhaps even with the odd visit from MB - so long as
he disassociated himself from Lancastrians such as Oxford and the like. A
sort of probation?
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that *Henry* either chose to place
himself at the head of the "Lancastrian" opposition or made no effort to
disassociate himself from them - we don't know which. And as Henry was the
*only* English national with even a hint of a Lancastrian claim and if *he*
decided , or agreed with Edward/Richard, not play politics, what would any
of the Lancastrians do - kill him? Kidnap him and send him off to
Edward/Richard?
The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug

Was Henry really a legitimate claimant though - methinks not? And R2 and Bolingbroke got on OK until that tournament in Coventry.


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

 


From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces

"Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable."

It's the civilised option, but I just don't see it as realistic.

Are there any examples of rival claimants living in peaceful co-existence?

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's nieces


 

ricard1an wrote:

"Surely Mummy kept him supplied with money too!!"

Doug here:
Is there any surviving evidence that MB *did* send Henry money?
Maybe I'm being too 20th-century about it, but I find it difficult to
believe that *something* couldn't have been worked out so that Henry could
live quietly in France, perhaps even with the odd visit from MB - so long as
he disassociated himself from Lancastrians such as Oxford and the like. A
sort of probation?
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that *Henry* either chose to place
himself at the head of the "Lancastrian" opposition or made no effort to
disassociate himself from them - we don't know which. And as Henry was the
*only* English national with even a hint of a Lancastrian claim and if *he*
decided , or agreed with Edward/Richard, not play politics, what would any
of the Lancastrians do - kill him? Kidnap him and send him off to
Edward/Richard?
The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug

Jonathan Evans wrote:

"It's the civilised option, but I just don't see it as realistic.
Are there any examples of rival claimants living in peaceful co-existence?"

Doug here:
Perhaps not, but Henry, and Edward, can be faulted for, as best we know, not
trying.
My knowledge of Italian, French, German and Iberian politics of this era
isn't nearly up to knowing if there were any examples from those countries.
The nearest, in time, that I can recall for Britian is Richard Cromwell in
1660. Then there were the later Stuarts, but by then the governing of
Britain had changed from a monarchy with a parliament to Parliament with a
monarch.
Not the same situation, at all.
Doug

Pamela Furmidge wrote

"According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
them from a tyrant."

Doug here:
Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
"traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
for the next decade!


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>




The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions

 


Pamela Furmidge wrote

"According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
them from a tyrant."

Doug here:
Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
"traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
for the next decade!

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>

The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Was Henry really a legitimate claimant though - methinks not?

Carol responds:

Exactly. He was not so much a rival claimant (or even, during Edward's reign, a "pretender") as just, in Edward's view, a minor nuisance. Edward had been king for years, deposed and restored, and he had what to all appearances seemed to be legitimate heirs, whereas Henry had less claim to the throne than the Duke of Buckingham, whom Edward carefully kept from having any power, however rich he might be. And Richard, too, preferred to hold the Tydder in contempt (though he could hardly ignore him once he actually "usurp[ed} upon him" the title of king.

At any rate, had Henry come home during Edward's reign, Edward might have satisfied Henry's ambition by granting him a general pardon and restoring to him his father's (Lancastrian) title as Earl of Richmond. I don't think he would have been so generous to Nuncle Jasper, though, who had fought against him. (I think it was Richard, not Edward, who gave Jasper's former title, Earl of Pembroke, to William Herbert, son of the William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, murdered by Warwick, but I could be mistaken.) And at that time, Margaret might have accepted that solution since there was little chance of overthrowing Edward and installing her son in his place. With the instability that ensued after Edward's death, matters took a different turn.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: HT as "rival claimant" to Edward IV
(Was: Richard's nieces)



> Exactly. He was not so much a rival claimant (or even, during Edward's
> reign, a "pretender") as just, in Edward's view, a minor nuisance. Edward
> had been king for years, deposed and restored, and he had what to all
> appearances seemed to be legitimate heirs,

But of course, if the pre-contract story was true Edward knew it *might*
come out and his sons' claim was precarious, which perhaps explains why he
saw Henry as enough of a potnetial threat to be worth pursuing, at leas
thalf-heartedly.

Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions

 
The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions

 


Pamela Furmidge wrote

"According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
them from a tyrant."

Doug here:
Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
"traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
for the next decade!

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>

The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well there's the big question :)



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions


 

Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions

 
The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions

 

Pamela Furmidge wrote

"According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
them from a tyrant."

Doug here:
Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
"traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
for the next decade!

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>

The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
that word!) politics would be acceptable.
Wouldn't it?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I am losing heart folks. I don't know about guys but I visit different history sites and RIII groups and the vitriol I came against is just making me feel ill. Even in groups which are supposed to be Ricardian, the negative emotion against R is rampant. Why does he incite such hatred? And such devotion?:)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Well there's the big question :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
>
>
> Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
> The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote
>
> "According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
> Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
> them from a tyrant."
>
> Doug here:
> Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
> "traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
> for the next decade!
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
>
> The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
> firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
> Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
> Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
> that word!) politics would be acceptable.
> Wouldn't it?
> Doug
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't lose heart, Ishita. I visit some of those sites too and they are truly disheartening and some posters seem to delight in maliciously blackening Richard's personality/reputation: indeed some of them are internet trolls who deliberately wind up "loyal-to-Richard" Ricardians just to get a rise out of them and make them spin in circles defending the king. The pleasure they derive from throwing in a complete slur whilst maintaining "it's just another interpretation", is sometimes unspeakable. But from Richard's own time and beyond there have always been those willing to dissipate rumour and gossip for the sheer naughtiness of it. It is negative emotion and it's very draining to come up against it. Sometimes the answer is to not answer their outrageous points at all but then it can feel as if a calumny has been left out in the open for everyone only slightly familiar with Richard to pick up and take home as the "real thing". I think this situation is partly due to the fact that "Richard III" groups do not have a fixed agenda anymore - they did back in 1927. Now RIII focus groups are a mix of those who purely want to research a historical figure (and some of these will devise wild theories in order to explore Richard's life and times in as broad a way as possible, with the widest possible interpretation; some will loathe Richard and some will love him and some will not care either way) and then there are those who are really into research but also belong to RIII groups in order to rehabilitate his reputation and are "loyal" to Richard. These groups have entirely different agendas so will clash under the same banner. In the end, I try to buckle my armour on and overlook the rudeness and carry on as calmly as possible.

Col


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am losing heart folks. I don't know about guys but I visit different history sites and RIII groups and the vitriol I came against is just making me feel ill. Even in groups which are supposed to be Ricardian, the negative emotion against R is rampant. Why does he incite such hatred? And such devotion?:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Well there's the big question :)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> > The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> >
> > Pamela Furmidge wrote
> >
> > "According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
> > Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
> > them from a tyrant."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
> > "traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
> > for the next decade!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> >
> > The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
> > firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
> > Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
> > Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
> > that word!) politics would be acceptable.
> > Wouldn't it?
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Don't lose heart. One of the things you sign up for when you openly support Richard is that you'll get some knocks. There's something about human nature that enjoys the nastier side of life and the saying 'no smoke without fire' has been used and is still used to support all sorts of allegations about innocent people. We just have to counter the arguments as best we can and learn to withdraw if it becomes apparent that the case is hopeless. If we don't we just end up getting battered to no avail. Some people want to believe the worst, you could say that's why tabloid newspapers are bestsellers.   
Personally I've been heartened these last few weeks; it's amazing how many comparative strangers want to get into conversation about Richard and are now willing to confess an interest. I work with the public so I can vouch for that.
So don't give up, have a lovely Easter!
PS Who hasn't snapped at hubby when he asks what's for tea and you're in the middle or some erudite explanation of Edward's greed or George's psyche.  H


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 3:30
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions


 

I am losing heart folks. I don't know about guys but I visit different history sites and RIII groups and the vitriol I came against is just making me feel ill. Even in groups which are supposed to be Ricardian, the negative emotion against R is rampant. Why does he incite such hatred? And such devotion?:)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well there's the big question :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
>
>
> Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
> The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote
>
> "According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
> Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
> them from a tyrant."
>
> Doug here:
> Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
> "traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
> for the next decade!
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
>
> The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
> firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
> Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
> Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
> that word!) politics would be acceptable.
> Wouldn't it?
> Doug
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Which sites are you referring to, Ishita?

Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 30 Mar 2013, at 10:11, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Don't lose heart. One of the things you sign up for when you openly support Richard is that you'll get some knocks. There's something about human nature that enjoys the nastier side of life and the saying 'no smoke without fire' has been used and is still used to support all sorts of allegations about innocent people. We just have to counter the arguments as best we can and learn to withdraw if it becomes apparent that the case is hopeless. If we don't we just end up getting battered to no avail. Some people want to believe the worst, you could say that's why tabloid newspapers are bestsellers.
> Personally I've been heartened these last few weeks; it's amazing how many comparative strangers want to get into conversation about Richard and are now willing to confess an interest. I work with the public so I can vouch for that.
> So don't give up, have a lovely Easter!
> PS Who hasn't snapped at hubby when he asks what's for tea and you're in the middle or some erudite explanation of Edward's greed or George's psyche. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 3:30
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
>
>
>
>
> I am losing heart folks. I don't know about guys but I visit different history sites and RIII groups and the vitriol I came against is just making me feel ill. Even in groups which are supposed to be Ricardian, the negative emotion against R is rampant. Why does he incite such hatred? And such devotion?:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well there's the big question :)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> > The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> >
> > Pamela Furmidge wrote
> >
> > "According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
> > Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
> > them from a tyrant."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
> > "traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
> > for the next decade!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> >
> > The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
> > firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
> > Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
> > Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
> > that word!) politics would be acceptable.
> > Wouldn't it?
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita may have other sites, but the one on which I have witnessed a lot of deliberately provocative assertions vehemently anti-Richard is the RIII Society Facebook page. There are other websites too.

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Which sites are you referring to, Ishita?
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 30 Mar 2013, at 10:11, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Don't lose heart. One of the things you sign up for when you openly support Richard is that you'll get some knocks. There's something about human nature that enjoys the nastier side of life and the saying 'no smoke without fire' has been used and is still used to support all sorts of allegations about innocent people. We just have to counter the arguments as best we can and learn to withdraw if it becomes apparent that the case is hopeless. If we don't we just end up getting battered to no avail. Some people want to believe the worst, you could say that's why tabloid newspapers are bestsellers.
> > Personally I've been heartened these last few weeks; it's amazing how many comparative strangers want to get into conversation about Richard and are now willing to confess an interest. I work with the public so I can vouch for that.
> > So don't give up, have a lovely Easter!
> > PS Who hasn't snapped at hubby when he asks what's for tea and you're in the middle or some erudite explanation of Edward's greed or George's psyche. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 3:30
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am losing heart folks. I don't know about guys but I visit different history sites and RIII groups and the vitriol I came against is just making me feel ill. Even in groups which are supposed to be Ricardian, the negative emotion against R is rampant. Why does he incite such hatred? And such devotion?:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well there's the big question :)
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 18:25
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well yes, "if" any rescue had been needed, which of course it wasn't.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:30
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> > >
> > >
> > > The fatal flaw in all this is of course that Henry didn't have a legitmate clam - the Beauforts had been barred from the Crown. There were, what, eighteen people in front of him. Couldn't one of them have effected the 'rescue'?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 16:59
> > > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's Actions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pamela Furmidge wrote
> > >
> > > "According to the 'traditionalists' there was such revulsion in England at
> > > Richard's 'crimes' that people almost begged Henry to come home and rescue
> > > them from a tyrant."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Well, if I had all the salt needed to be taken with what the
> > > "traditionalists" wrote/write, I wouldn't have to worry about ice or snow
> > > for the next decade!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <mailto:destama%40kconline.com>
> > >
> > > The longer Henry, and any progeny, stayed out of politics (and England), the
> > > firmer the grasp of Edward IV and his inheritors would be on the throne.
> > > Henry in England and under Edward's eye would undoubtedly be preferable, but
> > > Henry living quietly in France and eschewing (I've *always* wanted to use
> > > that word!) politics would be acceptable.
> > > Wouldn't it?
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>