Just another 'good' story?

Here's a line that I'm surprised Shakespeare didn't
use in his "Richard III."

Message from Thomas Stanley to Richard III: "As for
your grace's promise to behead Lord Strange he replies
that he has other sons."

I first read this story on the 1485 website,
http://www.1485.org/ in the "People" section.
Unfortunately, this story isn't footnoted, so I don't
know the source.

I found a version of it in P. M. Kendall's "Richard
III." (p.433) It's in a paragraph which has a
footnote to the Croyland Chronicle at its end. But
Stanley's alleged reply to Richard isn't footnoted.
And I can't find it in the Croyland Chronicle versions
that are available to me.

If the historical Thomas Stanley actually sent that to
the historical Richard III, it was an amazing thing to
say to his king, whose only son had died. Stanley
must have had a lot of confidence in Tudor's ability
to win.

But I have my doubts about this story.

Does anyone know the source of this story? Was it
from a contemporary source? A later generation?
Anonymous?


TIA!

Marion






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Here's a line that I'm surprised Shakespeare didn't
> use in his "Richard III."
>
> Message from Thomas Stanley to Richard III: "As for
> your grace's promise to behead Lord Strange he replies
> that he has other sons."
>
> I first read this story on the 1485 website,
> http://www.1485.org/ in the "People" section.
> Unfortunately, this story isn't footnoted, so I don't
> know the source.
>
> I found a version of it in P. M. Kendall's "Richard
> III." (p.433) It's in a paragraph which has a
> footnote to the Croyland Chronicle at its end. But
> Stanley's alleged reply to Richard isn't footnoted.
> And I can't find it in the Croyland Chronicle versions
> that are available to me.
>
> If the historical Thomas Stanley actually sent that to
> the historical Richard III, it was an amazing thing to
> say to his king, whose only son had died. Stanley
> must have had a lot of confidence in Tudor's ability
> to win.
>
> But I have my doubts about this story.
>
> Does anyone know the source of this story? Was it
> from a contemporary source? A later generation?
> Anonymous?
>
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion


Well, it reminds me of the reply William Marshal's father sent to
uh...Henry II was it?...when he reminded him that he had his son as
hostage for his good behavior. And was it also the elder Marshall
who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he was, and "had
the hammer and the anvil with which to forge other sons?"

Katy

Katy
> Well, it reminds me of the reply William Marshal's father sent to
> uh...Henry II was it?...when he reminded him that he had his son as
> hostage for his good behavior. And was it also the elder Marshall
> who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he was, and "had
> the hammer and the anvil with which to forge other sons?"

Ann:
I agree with you on the similarity of the story -- it was King
Stephen, not Henry II, who was younger than William Marshall.

L.P.H.,

Ann

--- In , "Ann Sharp"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> Katy
> > Well, it reminds me of the reply William Marshal's father sent to
> > uh...Henry II was it?...when he reminded him that he had his son
as
> > hostage for his good behavior. And was it also the elder
Marshall
> > who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he was,
and "had
> > the hammer and the anvil with which to forge other sons?"
>
> Ann:
> I agree with you on the similarity of the story -- it was King
> Stephen, not Henry II, who was younger than William Marshall.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann

I came up with Henry II by recalling that Eleanore of Aquitaine was
William Marshall's patroness, but then, she, too, was older than
Henry. Thanks for the gentle correction.

The similar stories, in turn, remind me of Marie's observation that
certain themes are repeated in traditions of the Middle Ages. She
mentioned Simon Magus, and there is this so-what-I-have/can-have-
other-sons, and the first time I read about Anne Neville being hidden
away as a kitchen wench while Richard Gloucester searched for her, I
thought "This is the Cinderella story." The Cinderella story
actually comes from Northern Europe, the area of Germany, but here
again is a theme that has resonated down the centuries. In our
favorite era, various rebels deliberately associated themselves with
the Robin Hood story.

The phenomenon of twice-told tales makes me wonder how much of some
stories, such as Cinder-Anne, are fact and how much are embellishment
and echoing.

Katy

> I came up with Henry II by recalling that Eleanore of Aquitaine
was
> William Marshall's patroness, but then, she, too, was older than
> Henry. Thanks for the gentle correction.
>
> The similar stories, in turn, remind me of Marie's observation
that
> certain themes are repeated in traditions of the Middle Ages. She
> mentioned Simon Magus, and there is this so-what-I-have/can-have-
> other-sons, and the first time I read about Anne Neville being
hidden
> away as a kitchen wench while Richard Gloucester searched for her,
I
> thought "This is the Cinderella story." The Cinderella story
> actually comes from Northern Europe, the area of Germany, but here
> again is a theme that has resonated down the centuries. In our
> favorite era, various rebels deliberately associated themselves
with
> the Robin Hood story.
>
> The phenomenon of twice-told tales makes me wonder how much of
some
> stories, such as Cinder-Anne, are fact and how much are
embellishment
> and echoing.
>
> Katy

On top of that we have the apocryphal ones. Whether the bible can be
relied upon for the death of Jezebel I don't know, but the accounts
of Brunhild's death in a similar manner certainly can't since the
purpose is to induce the reader into making just that connection. If
they died similarly they are to think they must have been similar
people. As for the original quote, might it be in the Ballad of
Bosworth?
Brunhild

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 05:11:11 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Just another 'good' story?
>
> the first time I read about Anne Neville being hidden
> away as a kitchen wench while Richard Gloucester searched for her,
this comes direct from the chroniclers, as does Anne dying during a solar
eclipse, stories you would NOT make up, or if you did, nobody would believe
them.
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:48:19 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Just another 'good' story?
>
> Whether the bible can be
> relied upon for the death of Jezebel I don't know, but the accounts
> of Brunhild's death in a similar manner certainly can't
Not meaning to be controversial, but the Old Testament stories are exactly
that, Hebrew folk tales. If we cannot believe Greek myths or German ones,
and I don¹t know anyone who does, why is it we are told we MUST believe the
Hebrew ones?
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "brunhild613" <brunhild@n...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:48:19 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Just another 'good'
story?
> >
> > Whether the bible can be
> > relied upon for the death of Jezebel I don't know, but the
accounts
> > of Brunhild's death in a similar manner certainly can't
> Not meaning to be controversial, but the Old Testament stories are
exactly
> that, Hebrew folk tales. If we cannot believe Greek myths or
German ones,
> and I don¹t know anyone who does, why is it we are told we MUST
believe the
> Hebrew ones?
> Paul

Actually, Paul, you might be suprised to learn just how many of
those old bible stories are now thought/proven to be true. I know I
was! Even myths like the golden fleece are now known to have had
some truth in them. Anyway, whether Jezebel's death is as described
wasn't the issue. The issue was that medieval writers chose to copy
it for Brunhild's death in order to create the illusion that she was
a second Jezebel in nature. Adopting and adapting such early
stories, true or not, is therefore a common enough ploy. Encomiums
(pl?) follow much the same sort of patterns too. Look at some of
what More wrote: it could be a direct crib of the life of Tiberius
which had recently been discovered. As a "bad man" who reigned when
Jesus was killed, and is therefore indirectly responsible for it, he
makes a perfect comparison for a murdering villainous uncle Richard!
Brunhild

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Ann Sharp"
> <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Katy
> > > Well, it reminds me of the reply William Marshal's father sent
to
> > > uh...Henry II was it?...when he reminded him that he had his
son
> as
> > > hostage for his good behavior. And was it also the elder
> Marshall
> > > who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he was,
> and "had
> > > the hammer and the anvil with which to forge other sons?"
> >
> > Ann:
> > I agree with you on the similarity of the story -- it was
King
> > Stephen, not Henry II, who was younger than William Marshall.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
>
> I came up with Henry II by recalling that Eleanore of Aquitaine was
> William Marshall's patroness, but then, she, too, was older than
> Henry. Thanks for the gentle correction.
>
> The similar stories, in turn, remind me of Marie's observation that
> certain themes are repeated in traditions of the Middle Ages. She
> mentioned Simon Magus, and there is this so-what-I-have/can-have-
> other-sons, and the first time I read about Anne Neville being
hidden
> away as a kitchen wench while Richard Gloucester searched for her,
I
> thought "This is the Cinderella story." The Cinderella story
> actually comes from Northern Europe, the area of Germany, but here
> again is a theme that has resonated down the centuries. In our
> favorite era, various rebels deliberately associated themselves
with
> the Robin Hood story.
>
> The phenomenon of twice-told tales makes me wonder how much of some
> stories, such as Cinder-Anne, are fact and how much are
embellishment
> and echoing.
>
> Katy

Hi Katy,

Brain still creaking on, despite Flu and worldly concerns.

You'll be unsurprised (but groaning) to know I have some old notes on
the origins of the Cinderella story. These I have prefeaced with the
following note:
"The motif of the princess kept in rags (in European versions
specifically in the kitchen), the help given her by a magical animal
or fairy helper, and the summoning of a royal bridegroom via the tiny
lost slipper, appear sometimes together, sometimes separately, in
various tales, from counries as diverse as Egypt, China and Scotland.
The Opies claim a Scandinavian origin for the 'Rashin Coatie'
variant, but cite no evidence."

The little slipper element appears very early in China and Egypt (the
latter via Herodotus), and I suspect a Chinese origin for it (foot
binding?). But this motif does not concern us here.

For the kitchen motif I have noted written examples from the
following:
1. 'Mabinogion' (Red Book of Hergest, Welsh, 14th century);
tale "Branwen Daughter of Llyr". This story, ostensibly of a war
between Wales and Ireland, has its main roots in an historical attack
on Delphi by Celtic forces under Brennius in 300 something BC (I
think without checking). But the following detail (ie the pretext for
the war!) is extraneous to that: Branwen, Welsh queen of the Irish
king Matholwch, is disgraced because of the insults heaped on her
husband by her bad brother Nisien, and is banished to the kitchens,
where she is every day dealt 3 blows by the cook. She sends a message
to her good brother Bran, and he comes to rescue her.

2. From The Pentamerone (1634),Italy, the story "La Gatta
Cenerentola".

3. Cendrillon, France (Perrault), 1697

4. Finetta the Cinder-girl, Madame d'Aulnoy, 1721.

5. Rashni Coatie, Scotland, 1878 (but referred to by name 1800). The
heroine is downtrodden by ugly sisters and wears coat made of rushes,
but whether she is specifiacally relegated to the kitchen I am less
certain.

6. Tattercoats. an English version of Rashin Coatie. I think this may
come from Lincs. The girl was believed dead by her father and was
breought up in the palace uncared for, fed on scraps from the kitchen

There is also a version in the medieval German romance Willehalm
(about Guillaume de Gellone) in which the cinderella figure is male -
a Turkish prince captured by the French and set to work in the
kitchens of the French king until fate intervenes in the form of the
love of the French king's daughter.

So it is quite possible that people in England were familiar with
this motif in the 15th century. Either Clarence could have taken an
idea from it, or the literatti at Edward's court could have wittily
brought up the analogy when Richard rescued Anne, or it was one of
those odd coincidences in which life imitates art - which do happen.
The only thing with the last is that Croyland himself was not
particularly pro Richard - even in this he attributes Richard's
rescue of the girl to his "craftiness" - whereas there is no doubt
that the figure who rescues the princess from the kitchens in these
stories is absolutely meant to be the hero. So not something invented
by Croyland himself.

Hmm. . .
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

>
> Hi Katy,
>
> Brain still creaking on, despite Flu and worldly concerns.
>
> You'll be unsurprised (but groaning) to know I have some old notes
on
> the origins of the Cinderella story. These I have prefeaced with
the
> following note:
> "The motif of the princess kept in rags (in European versions
> specifically in the kitchen), the help given her by a magical
animal
> or fairy helper, and the summoning of a royal bridegroom via the
tiny
> lost slipper, appear sometimes together, sometimes separately, in
> various tales, from counries as diverse as Egypt, China and
Scotland.
> The Opies claim a Scandinavian origin for the 'Rashin Coatie'
> variant, but cite no evidence."
>
> The little slipper element appears very early in China and Egypt
(the
> latter via Herodotus), and I suspect a Chinese origin for it (foot
> binding?). But this motif does not concern us here.
>
> For the kitchen motif I have noted written examples from the
> following:
> 1. 'Mabinogion' (Red Book of Hergest, Welsh, 14th century);
> tale "Branwen Daughter of Llyr". This story, ostensibly of a war
> between Wales and Ireland, has its main roots in an historical
attack
> on Delphi by Celtic forces under Brennius in 300 something BC (I
> think without checking). But the following detail (ie the pretext
for
> the war!) is extraneous to that: Branwen, Welsh queen of the Irish
> king Matholwch, is disgraced because of the insults heaped on her
> husband by her bad brother Nisien, and is banished to the kitchens,
> where she is every day dealt 3 blows by the cook. She sends a
message
> to her good brother Bran, and he comes to rescue her.
>
> 2. From The Pentamerone (1634),Italy, the story "La Gatta
> Cenerentola".
>
> 3. Cendrillon, France (Perrault), 1697
>
> 4. Finetta the Cinder-girl, Madame d'Aulnoy, 1721.
>
> 5. Rashni Coatie, Scotland, 1878 (but referred to by name 1800).
The
> heroine is downtrodden by ugly sisters and wears coat made of
rushes,
> but whether she is specifiacally relegated to the kitchen I am less
> certain.
>
> 6. Tattercoats. an English version of Rashin Coatie. I think this
may
> come from Lincs. The girl was believed dead by her father and was
> breought up in the palace uncared for, fed on scraps from the
kitchen
>
> There is also a version in the medieval German romance Willehalm
> (about Guillaume de Gellone) in which the cinderella figure is
male -
> a Turkish prince captured by the French and set to work in the
> kitchens of the French king until fate intervenes in the form of
the
> love of the French king's daughter.
>
> So it is quite possible that people in England were familiar with
> this motif in the 15th century. Either Clarence could have taken an
> idea from it, or the literatti at Edward's court could have wittily
> brought up the analogy when Richard rescued Anne, or it was one of
> those odd coincidences in which life imitates art - which do
happen.
> The only thing with the last is that Croyland himself was not
> particularly pro Richard - even in this he attributes Richard's
> rescue of the girl to his "craftiness" - whereas there is no doubt
> that the figure who rescues the princess from the kitchens in these
> stories is absolutely meant to be the hero. So not something
invented
> by Croyland himself.
>
> Hmm. . .
> Marie

Very interesting indeed. Another -- I'm sure very unintentional --
shadow of the tale of the high-born or noble person relegated to
slave away in the kitchens to be hidden or unjustly punished might be
the business of Lambert Simnel, hmmm?

Katy

Marie:
> So it is quite possible that people in England
> were familiar with this motif .... Either Clarence
> could have taken an idea from it, or ....

Ann:
I've always thought it was at least as likely that Anne deliberately
ran away (and perhaps managed to get a message to Richard). The
London of her day was fairly small, and I've wondered how possible it
would have been to conceal someone in a private kitchen who didn't
want to be concealed.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Marie wrote: Croyland himself was not particularly pro
Richard - even in this he attributes Richard's
rescue of the girl to his "craftiness" - whereas there
is no doubt that the figure who rescues the princess
from the kitchens in these stories is absolutely meant
to be the hero. So not something invented by Croyland
himself.

***


Once Richard had been typecast as a villian, it seems
that anything heroic he did had to be explained away
as "craftiness" or deceitfulness or whatever.

It looks to me as if Richard's actions and motives
have been compared to several stories that don't fit
that well. Herod ordered the killing of all babies a
year old, IIRC. Richard's 2 nephews were 9 and 12
years old. Godard and Godrich in Havelock the Dane
come closer to what Richard is accused of. But
Richard didn't bring up his nephews in harsh
conditions. (I'm not convinced he ordered them to be
killed) I don't think Richard had much in common with
Tiberias or Mordred, either.

Richard's horoscope with an ascendant in Scorpio is
supposed to show that he's evil. But Edward V was
born with his natal sun in Scorpio, and I haven't read
anything that says his Scorpio sun makes him evil. I
double checked "Arthurian Myths and Alchemy; the
kingship of Edward IV", and Jonathan Hughes doesn't
say anything about Edward V's Scorpio sun.

Has anyone seen anything about Edward V's horoscope
and character?

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Katy wrote: Well, it reminds me of the reply William
Marshal's father sent to uh...Henry II was it? ...when
he reminded him that he had his son as hostage for his
good behavior. And was it also the elder Marshall
who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he
was, and "had the hammer and the anvil with which to
forge other sons?"

***

Ann wrote: I agree with you on the similarity of the
story -- it was King Stephen, not Henry II, who was
younger than William Marshall.

***

I'm not surprised to hear that this older story had
been retold with Thomas Stanley in place of William
Marshall. It seemed out of character for Stanley to
show such open contempt for Richard before he knew the
outcome of the battle. He was unlikely to have talked
his way out of it if Richard had won.

Now I want to read up on King Stephen and William
Marshall. Can anyone recommend books or articles?

I'd like to hear about other versions of this story if
they exist.

***

Katy wrote: The phenomenon of twice-told tales makes
me wonder how much of some stories, such as
Cinder-Anne, are fact and how much are embellishment
and echoing.

***

That's a good question. Considering what I've read
about Heinrich Schliemann's excavations at Troy and a
variety of myths and folktales, I'd say it's a mixture
of the three.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Everyone seems to assume that later versions of stories are always
unhistoric, yet there are occasions on which people have
deliberately echoed or quoted famous sayings in order to make a
point, so it's not impossible that others might have used William
Marshall's words in later times. Though I agree that given the
circumstances of Bosworth Field, it does seem rather foolhardy for
Stanley to have done so.

No one has answered my query about Bacon's sources. Is that because
the answer is obvious and everyone's too polite to say so? I know
about Vergil but don't know whether he ever said anything at all to
Henry VII's dispraise that Bacon then enlarged upon.


--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Katy wrote: Well, it reminds me of the reply William
> Marshal's father sent to uh...Henry II was it? ...when
> he reminded him that he had his son as hostage for his
> good behavior. And was it also the elder Marshall
> who replied that he had his wife with him wherever he
> was, and "had the hammer and the anvil with which to
> forge other sons?"
>
> ***
>
> Ann wrote: I agree with you on the similarity of the
> story -- it was King Stephen, not Henry II, who was
> younger than William Marshall.
>
> ***
>
> I'm not surprised to hear that this older story had
> been retold with Thomas Stanley in place of William
> Marshall. It seemed out of character for Stanley to
> show such open contempt for Richard before he knew the
> outcome of the battle. He was unlikely to have talked
> his way out of it if Richard had won.
>
> Now I want to read up on King Stephen and William
> Marshall. Can anyone recommend books or articles?
>
> I'd like to hear about other versions of this story if
> they exist.
>
> ***
>
> Katy wrote: The phenomenon of twice-told tales makes
> me wonder how much of some stories, such as
> Cinder-Anne, are fact and how much are embellishment
> and echoing.
>
> ***
>
> That's a good question. Considering what I've read
> about Heinrich Schliemann's excavations at Troy and a
> variety of myths and folktales, I'd say it's a mixture
> of the three.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/

Suzanne wrote: No one has answered my query about
Bacon's sources. Is that because the answer is obvious
and everyone's too polite to say so?

***

Not in my case.

I've been looking for an answer, but I'm not happy
with what I've found, because I don't think it answers
your question about Henry's treatment of his wife.

There's one more book I want to look at, but it's
checked out of the library right now.

Here's the best I've found so far:

From the Introduction to "The History of the Reign of
King Henry the Seventh, Francis Bacon, ed. by F. J.
Levy. New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1972. pp. 51-53

The matter of Bacon's sources has come up on several
occasions. Both Bacon's nineteenth century editor,
James Spedding, and Wilhelm Busch, the German who
wrote the standard account of Henry's reign, have
investigated the matter in great detail. From those
studies, a number of facts emerge. Bacon's History
was based on the earlier work of Polydore Vergil, as
seen through Edward Hall's English rendering (on at
least one occasion, Bacon followed Hall in a
mistranslation). He had also read Fabyan and probably
used Bernard Andre, though he might have gotten the
Andre material from Speed's book. The brief comment
on Cabot's voyage derived from Richard Hakluyt, the
chronicler of exploration. At some time, Bacon had
had access to the vast library of Sir Robert Cotton
and had read Perkin's proclamation. And Bacon used
the parliament Rolls and the books of statutes. He
had seen a book of financial transactions kept by
Empson. Finally, we know that Bacon and Speed had
helped each other at some time between 1605 and 16ll,
that is, after the year in which Bacon's letter to
Ellesmere first announced an interest in history and
the year in which speed published his mammoth folio.
Speed was only too happy to make use of Bacon's
jottings; we may assume that Bacon was equally pleased
to have access to Speed's researches. But further
details concering their mutual indebtedness cannot be
found.

For his facts, Bacon followed his sources almost
slavishly. When Polydore plunged into error over the
chronology of the whole Breton war episode, Bacon did
nothing to rectify matters; instead, he made Bishop
Morton deliver a speech to a Parliament that had been
called the year before the events that Morton was
presenting. Perkin Warbeck's Scottish speech came
from Speed, who concocted it from Perkin's
proclamation; Bacon's notice of the proclamation came
form his own earlier reading of the document, but
since he did not have access to it when he was writing
(it was in London, and he was still an exile in the
country), he simply gave its substance from memory.
Other incidents were invented: Morton's fork was a
story that had been attributed to a number of people;
Bacon used it because it seemed appropriate. Henry's
avarice was exaggerated, thought there was some
evidence for it. Henry's relations to his wife and
mother-in-law were not as Bacon reported them: he
elaborated some dubious hints without seeking positive
evidence. There is no need to extend the litany.
Bacon cannot be considered an original source for the
reign of Henry VII, nor did he have available evidence
that has since been lost. The History is a source
only for what it reveals of the mind of its author; it
is valuable for its interpretation, not for its
facts."

I've read Charles Williams' biography of Henry VII,
and I'm working my way through S.B. Chrimes' Henry
VII. Neither of them discuss Francis Bacon's sources
as Levy does.

But I think they are both worth reading if you have
the time and inclination. They'll give you something
to compare F.J. Levy's opinions to. I feel that Levy
is being too easy on Henry VII, but Levy may not have
seen the same documents as Williams and Chrimes.

I'm writing from memory because I don't have either
the Williams or Chrimes biography at hand right now.
IIRC, both of them give evidence that shows Henry was
"nothing uxorious." Chrimes cites their reactions to
Prince Arthur's death as proof of respect and
affection between Henry and Elizabeth. But I don't
accept that as disproof of Bacon's description.
Prince Arthur's death was one sad experience in a 17
(or 18?) year political marriage.

After Prince Arthur's death, Henry VII's treatment of
Catharine of Aragon--as described by both Williams and
Chrimes--can be described as crude and exploitative.

Chrimes quotes evidence that shows Henry VII and his
money-raisers--such as Dudley and Empson--were both
avaricious and unscrupulous. I can't give it in
detail right now, but I suggest reading his book--or
the parts that deal with his money-raising tactics.

Morton's Fork may have been invented and used by his
subordinates. But as one who agrees with the
principle: "The Buck Stops Here" (Did Harry S Truman
really have that sign on his desk when he was
president? If it's not true, it should have been) I'm
willing to accept the expression and use it. Cardinal
Morton was one of Henry's strongest supporters and he
was well rewarded for his support. I think it fits
the evidence of the money-raising tactics authorized
by Morton and Henry VII. Henry's Fork might be a more
accurate description, but it lacks assonance.

Hope this helps,

Marion














__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Thank you very much for such a full and helpful answer. I can now go
further in comparing the sources.

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: Croyland himself was not particularly pro
> Richard - even in this he attributes Richard's
> rescue of the girl to his "craftiness" - whereas there
> is no doubt that the figure who rescues the princess
> from the kitchens in these stories is absolutely meant
> to be the hero. So not something invented by Croyland
> himself.
>
> ***
>
>
> Once Richard had been typecast as a villian, it seems
> that anything heroic he did had to be explained away
> as "craftiness" or deceitfulness or whatever.
>
> It looks to me as if Richard's actions and motives
> have been compared to several stories that don't fit
> that well. Herod ordered the killing of all babies a
> year old, IIRC. Richard's 2 nephews were 9 and 12
> years old. Godard and Godrich in Havelock the Dane
> come closer to what Richard is accused of. But
> Richard didn't bring up his nephews in harsh
> conditions. (I'm not convinced he ordered them to be
> killed) I don't think Richard had much in common with
> Tiberias or Mordred, either.
>
> Richard's horoscope with an ascendant in Scorpio is
> supposed to show that he's evil. But Edward V was
> born with his natal sun in Scorpio, and I haven't read
> anything that says his Scorpio sun makes him evil. I
> double checked "Arthurian Myths and Alchemy; the
> kingship of Edward IV", and Jonathan Hughes doesn't
> say anything about Edward V's Scorpio sun.

Well, exactly. I happen to think this was just another propaganda
tool in the hands of those who had decided for quite other reasons
that they wanted to keep Richard off the throne. After all, one
person in six would have Scorpio as either ascendant (horizon) sign
or sun sign. Having said that, apparently astrologers regard the
ascendant sign as more important than the birth sign. It's just that
people only know their ascendant if they've been lucky enough to have
their horoscope cast properly.
>
> Has anyone seen anything about Edward V's horoscope
> and character?
No. I don't know if the information about time of birth is there, or
whether there are any surviving contemporary refs to his horoscope. I
notice Michael Hicks has just written a book on EV; perhaps that
would be worth checking out.

Marie

>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/