Hastings execution
Hastings execution
2013-04-20 05:24:27
As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel that would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what he was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard' debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 11:46:30
Welcome, Ringo, from the Brooklyn contingent! Hope you gather a lot of
intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
know your own theories as we go on.
Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
write about the execution.
Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
Shore.
Welcome again,
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel that
> would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what he
> was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
>
>
>
intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
know your own theories as we go on.
Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
write about the execution.
Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
Shore.
Welcome again,
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel that
> would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what he
> was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 13:23:31
From: ringoandstar
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Hastings execution
I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
Shore with Dorset?
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Hastings execution
I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
Shore with Dorset?
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 13:24:27
From: ringoandstar
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Hastings execution
> As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick,
> what he was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was
> influenced and why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his
> fears,concerns and his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good
> or bad Richard' debate, it's just not important in my view to label him
> either way. To me he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The
> Hastings execution makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks
> for reading.
Hello and welcome. It's doubly odd because Edward, Richard, Rivers and
Hastings had all been in exile together when Richard was a teenager, and you
would have thought they would have been friends.
If I understand what other people on this list have said correctly, Richard
did provide an explanation of the execution to parliament: this document has
been lost and nobody knows what was in it but it was enough to satisfy
parliament at the time that he had had legally justifiable cause. The
description of the incident (is it More's?), if it is at all accuarte,
suggests that Richard left the room and while he was missing he received
some information which made him see Hastings in a whole new light.
One possibility which was mooted recently was that Hastings, as a close
friend of Edward's, knew that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was
bigamous and kept it a secret, and Richard found out. That would mean that
Hastings had knowingly tried to place a bastard on the throne, which would
probably count as treason (if we politely gloss over the fact that the
entire Plantagenet claim derived from William the Bastard!). I myself added
to this the suggestion that Stillington may have raised the issue of the
pre-contract some weeks earlier than is officially recorded and that
Hastings may have assured Richard there was no truth in it - and Richard
found out he'd been lied to over a very grave matter of state.
Psychologically, Richard must have been shocked by the pre-contract story
because if it was true it meant Edward had lied to him and to the country
for years and had corrupted the succession just to satisfy his own lust, and
so Richard's love for the brother he had just been bereaved of had been
given to an unworthy object. Rather than admit to himself that his beloved
Edward had been a wrong'un all along, he might have wanted to believe that
Hastings was the villain of the piece who had led Edward astray, since
Hastings seems to have been a famous playboy.
But also, it occurs to me that maybe a strong friendship really was formed
in exile, between Hastings and Rivers, and that Hastings was in on the
Woodville plot to secure the Great Royal Seal, the treasure and the person
of the boy king and lever Richard out of the Protectorate, and Richard found
out. It would explaine the bit of business about Jane Shore being a
go-between between Hastings and Dorset - and wasn't Hastings married to a
Woodville? Or am I getting that last bit wrong?
It's also possible Hastings was innocent of any wrong-doing but that
Buckingham was already plotting, and persuaded Richard that Hastings was
guilty of something in order to get him put out of the way of Buckingham's
own advancement. It could be that the later falling-out between Richard and
Buckingham happened because Richard found out Buckingham had lied to him and
had tricked him into committing a judicial murder.
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
Subject: Hastings execution
> As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick,
> what he was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was
> influenced and why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his
> fears,concerns and his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good
> or bad Richard' debate, it's just not important in my view to label him
> either way. To me he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The
> Hastings execution makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks
> for reading.
Hello and welcome. It's doubly odd because Edward, Richard, Rivers and
Hastings had all been in exile together when Richard was a teenager, and you
would have thought they would have been friends.
If I understand what other people on this list have said correctly, Richard
did provide an explanation of the execution to parliament: this document has
been lost and nobody knows what was in it but it was enough to satisfy
parliament at the time that he had had legally justifiable cause. The
description of the incident (is it More's?), if it is at all accuarte,
suggests that Richard left the room and while he was missing he received
some information which made him see Hastings in a whole new light.
One possibility which was mooted recently was that Hastings, as a close
friend of Edward's, knew that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was
bigamous and kept it a secret, and Richard found out. That would mean that
Hastings had knowingly tried to place a bastard on the throne, which would
probably count as treason (if we politely gloss over the fact that the
entire Plantagenet claim derived from William the Bastard!). I myself added
to this the suggestion that Stillington may have raised the issue of the
pre-contract some weeks earlier than is officially recorded and that
Hastings may have assured Richard there was no truth in it - and Richard
found out he'd been lied to over a very grave matter of state.
Psychologically, Richard must have been shocked by the pre-contract story
because if it was true it meant Edward had lied to him and to the country
for years and had corrupted the succession just to satisfy his own lust, and
so Richard's love for the brother he had just been bereaved of had been
given to an unworthy object. Rather than admit to himself that his beloved
Edward had been a wrong'un all along, he might have wanted to believe that
Hastings was the villain of the piece who had led Edward astray, since
Hastings seems to have been a famous playboy.
But also, it occurs to me that maybe a strong friendship really was formed
in exile, between Hastings and Rivers, and that Hastings was in on the
Woodville plot to secure the Great Royal Seal, the treasure and the person
of the boy king and lever Richard out of the Protectorate, and Richard found
out. It would explaine the bit of business about Jane Shore being a
go-between between Hastings and Dorset - and wasn't Hastings married to a
Woodville? Or am I getting that last bit wrong?
It's also possible Hastings was innocent of any wrong-doing but that
Buckingham was already plotting, and persuaded Richard that Hastings was
guilty of something in order to get him put out of the way of Buckingham's
own advancement. It could be that the later falling-out between Richard and
Buckingham happened because Richard found out Buckingham had lied to him and
had tricked him into committing a judicial murder.
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 13:24:58
Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in
passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England.
Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement
in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who
was then Constable of England - was it still Richard?
As with so many points in Richard's story the sort of documentation we'd
like to have is missing (was there a record of the council meeting, which
is now missing/), & so subject to endless interpretation & debate.
What does Annette Carson say about the sources? Although I have finally
received her book, I had to come up for air already after the very first
chapter on the possible poisoning of edward IV.
A J
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> Welcome, Ringo, from the Brooklyn contingent! Hope you gather a lot of
> intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
> know your own theories as we go on.
>
> Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
> the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
> and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
> knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
> the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
>
> I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
> Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
> wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
> Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
> discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
> and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
> write about the execution.
>
> Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
> clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
> Shore.
>
> Welcome again,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> > this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> > 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that
> > would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what
> he
> > was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> > why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> > his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> > debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> > he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> > makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in
passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England.
Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement
in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who
was then Constable of England - was it still Richard?
As with so many points in Richard's story the sort of documentation we'd
like to have is missing (was there a record of the council meeting, which
is now missing/), & so subject to endless interpretation & debate.
What does Annette Carson say about the sources? Although I have finally
received her book, I had to come up for air already after the very first
chapter on the possible poisoning of edward IV.
A J
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> Welcome, Ringo, from the Brooklyn contingent! Hope you gather a lot of
> intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
> know your own theories as we go on.
>
> Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
> the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
> and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
> knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
> the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
>
> I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
> Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
> wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
> Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
> discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
> and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
> write about the execution.
>
> Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
> clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
> Shore.
>
> Welcome again,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> > this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> > 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that
> > would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what
> he
> > was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> > why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> > his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> > debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> > he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> > makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 15:01:26
Mancini states (pg 69) - "Hastings… was also the accomplice and partner of [the king's] privy pleasures. He maintained a deadly feud with the queen's son…and that because the mistresses whom they had abducted or attempted to entice from one another."
Thomas More says of 'Jane Shore' - " When the king died, the lord Chamberlen toke her. Which in the kinges daise, albeit he was was sore ennamored vpon her, yet he forbare her, either for reuerence, or for a certain frendly faithfulnes." After Hastings "took her", with whom he lay nightli", she was "one also of his most secret counsel" in the treason he is arrested for.
The Great Chronicle states Jane Shore' had to do penance - "ffor the lyfe that she ledd wt þe said lord hastyngys & othir grete astatys".
In Rymer's Foedera there is a proclamation of Richard's dated at Leicester, October 23, 1483, in which "a reward of 1000 marks in money, or 100 a-year in land", is offered for taking "Thomas late marquis of Dorset," who, " not having the fear of God, nor the salvation of his own soul, before his eyes, has damnably debauched and defiled many maids, widows, and wives, and lived in actual adultery with the wife of Shore."
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ringoandstar
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Hastings execution
>
>
> I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
> Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
> Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
> reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
> Shore with Dorset?
>
Thomas More says of 'Jane Shore' - " When the king died, the lord Chamberlen toke her. Which in the kinges daise, albeit he was was sore ennamored vpon her, yet he forbare her, either for reuerence, or for a certain frendly faithfulnes." After Hastings "took her", with whom he lay nightli", she was "one also of his most secret counsel" in the treason he is arrested for.
The Great Chronicle states Jane Shore' had to do penance - "ffor the lyfe that she ledd wt þe said lord hastyngys & othir grete astatys".
In Rymer's Foedera there is a proclamation of Richard's dated at Leicester, October 23, 1483, in which "a reward of 1000 marks in money, or 100 a-year in land", is offered for taking "Thomas late marquis of Dorset," who, " not having the fear of God, nor the salvation of his own soul, before his eyes, has damnably debauched and defiled many maids, widows, and wives, and lived in actual adultery with the wife of Shore."
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ringoandstar
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Hastings execution
>
>
> I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
> Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
> Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
> reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
> Shore with Dorset?
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 19:02:16
Some years ago there was an article about Hasting in the Ricardian about Hastings. I think that it may have been by Lorraine Attreed, but I am not sure about that. Apparently he knew the Woodvilles before Edward married Elizabeth because Thomas Grey, Elizabeth's son was his ward. I have always thought it was a coincidence that Elizabeth just happened to be in the wood where she met Edward just as he was passing through. Could someone (Hastings) have told her where Edward was going to be? So maybe he was closer to the Woodvilles than previously thought.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ringoandstar
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Hastings execution
>
>
> I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
> Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
> Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
> reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
> Shore with Dorset?
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ringoandstar
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:53 AM
> Subject: Hastings execution
>
>
> I see I got Hastings and Buckingham confused in my last post - it was
> Buckingham who was married to a Woodville and Hastings to a Neville.
> Hastings was supposed to hate the Woodvilles - but who says so and how
> reliable are they? What authority is there for the idea that he shared Jane
> Shore with Dorset?
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-20 19:12:28
Richard was indeed Constable at the time.
----- Original Message -----
From: A J Hibbard
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in
passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England.
Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement
in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who
was then Constable of England - was it still Richard?
As with so many points in Richard's story the sort of documentation we'd
like to have is missing (was there a record of the council meeting, which
is now missing/), & so subject to endless interpretation & debate.
What does Annette Carson say about the sources? Although I have finally
received her book, I had to come up for air already after the very first
chapter on the possible poisoning of edward IV.
A J
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> Welcome, Ringo, from the Brooklyn contingent! Hope you gather a lot of
> intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
> know your own theories as we go on.
>
> Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
> the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
> and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
> knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
> the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
>
> I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
> Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
> wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
> Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
> discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
> and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
> write about the execution.
>
> Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
> clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
> Shore.
>
> Welcome again,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> > this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> > 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that
> > would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what
> he
> > was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> > why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> > his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> > debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> > he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> > makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: A J Hibbard
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in
passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England.
Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement
in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who
was then Constable of England - was it still Richard?
As with so many points in Richard's story the sort of documentation we'd
like to have is missing (was there a record of the council meeting, which
is now missing/), & so subject to endless interpretation & debate.
What does Annette Carson say about the sources? Although I have finally
received her book, I had to come up for air already after the very first
chapter on the possible poisoning of edward IV.
A J
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> Welcome, Ringo, from the Brooklyn contingent! Hope you gather a lot of
> intelligent tidbits from this lovely group, and that you'll be letting us
> know your own theories as we go on.
>
> Hastings' execution is a mystery, up to and including the actual date of
> the execution. Peter Hancock's _Murder in the Tower_ examines the incident
> and comes up with some very intriguing conclusions centering on Catesby's
> knowledge about Eleanor Talbot Butler and Hastings' own knowledge of it as
> the impetus for Richard's outrage and impetuous command.
>
> I have a theory of my own, centering around Hastings' loss of influence to
> Buckingham, coupled with his antipathy toward the Woodvilles, which, I
> wonder, may have led him into Morton's camp. I believe Morton was set on
> Henry Tudor's ascension from the moment Edward IV died. If Richard
> discovered this, I feel he would certainly have been motivated to explode;
> and Morton could twist things nicely when it came time for Thomas More to
> write about the execution.
>
> Anyway, I recommend Hancock's book, which is nicely written, intelligently
> clear, and which provides nice background on Catesby, Hastings and Jane
> Shore.
>
> Welcome again,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As i'm new to the forum i may have missed the relevant info regarding
> > this, although i did use the search box - i got some posts regarding
> > 'treason' but no firm details. I have not joined the Society as i feel
> that
> > would be innapropriate, my own focus is on what made Richard tick, what
> he
> > was thinking as events unfolded - how and by whom he was influenced and
> > why,what he orchestrated,influenced or controlled, his fears,concerns and
> > his ambitions. I understand the attraction of 'the good or bad Richard'
> > debate, it's just not important in my view to label him either way. To me
> > he was simply a man, no less a king 'of his time'.The Hastings execution
> > makes little sense to me from what i have read.Thanks for reading.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 21:27:33
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 21:37:20
Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 21:42:48
;)
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
>
> There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
Carol responds:
Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Um, what?
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 21:56:39
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
>
Perhaps "knight errant" is a misspelling for "knave arrant"?
You've got to admit Richard's absolute genius at propaganda, though. He obviously destroyed Sir Edward Woodville's reputation to the extent that I didn't even know the latter *had* a reputation!
>
> Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
>
Perhaps "knight errant" is a misspelling for "knave arrant"?
You've got to admit Richard's absolute genius at propaganda, though. He obviously destroyed Sir Edward Woodville's reputation to the extent that I didn't even know the latter *had* a reputation!
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 22:31:43
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a
> thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen
> and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for
> whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make
> sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal
> brother and the conscientious king.
Or perhaps there wasn't one, but Buckingham convinced Richard that there
was. Is there any evidence as to whether Buckingham was a loyal supporter
of Richard's who was wooed away by Morton, as in the More version, or
whether he was setting Richard up from the first?
> "that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Eh?
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a
> thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen
> and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for
> whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make
> sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal
> brother and the conscientious king.
Or perhaps there wasn't one, but Buckingham convinced Richard that there
was. Is there any evidence as to whether Buckingham was a loyal supporter
of Richard's who was wooed away by Morton, as in the More version, or
whether he was setting Richard up from the first?
> "that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
Eh?
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-21 22:57:44
Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
> Subject: Re: Hastings execution
>
> Â
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
> >
> > There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
>
> As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
>
> Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
>
> Um, what?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
> Subject: Re: Hastings execution
>
> Â
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
> >
> > There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
>
> As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
>
> Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
>
> Um, what?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-22 03:12:20
Who is the author? Is it a novel?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:57 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
> > Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
> > >
> > > There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
> >
> > As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
> >
> > Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
> >
> > Um, what?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:57 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't he run off with some of the lolly from the Treasury and it was never recovered? Therefore "knight Errant" must be a new euphemism for thief.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
> > Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > Or there really was a treasonous plot against Richard's life.
> > >
> > > There's an element which I haven't researched but have seen mentioned in passing, as to the sort of law administered by the Constable of England. Which law, if I'm understanding correctly, allowed for summary judgement in cases of treason. I hope someone here can elaborate, also identify who was then Constable of England - was it still Richard? [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes. Everything makes sense if we take Richard at his word--there was a thwarted ambush on the road to London and there was a plot by the queen and her "blood affinity" to kill him and Buckingham, which also, for whatever reason, involved Hastings. That's the only way I know of to make sense of the Protectorate and reconcile that Richard with the loyal brother and the conscientious king.
> >
> > As far as I know, Richard still held all his offices (constable, great chamberlain, admiral), so, Mancini to the contrary, a plot against him *would* have been treason even before his appointment as Protector was confirmed. The only evidence is have is that Rotherham, who had been chancellor under Edward IV, was still chancellor until Richard and the council deprived him of his office and gave it to Russell. The council didn't take any action during his absence to deprive him of the offices he held and give them to anyone else.
> >
> > Oh, by the way, I just read a new attack on Richard that will make you either laugh or cry: Sir Edward Woodville (the pirate whom the Woodvilles would no doubt have made admiral in Richard's place) is the subject of a book titled "The Last Knight Errant," whose premise is that Sir Edward was "a true hero whose reputation suffered at the hands of that genius of propaganda, Richard III."
> >
> > Um, what?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-22 07:41:11
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> Who is the author? Is it a novel?
Certainly sounds like fiction....
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
> Who is the author? Is it a novel?
Certainly sounds like fiction....
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-22 13:48:55
"ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
Carol responds:
Originally, he was just keeping it in Woodville hands (and away from Richard--heroic, that!). Richard was still protector when he left. Tudor must have persuaded him that he was an ally against Richard once Richard became king. He would hardly have told Edward ex-V's maternal uncle that he was a rival to Edward as well as Richard.
Carol, not sure that made any sense
>
> Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
Carol responds:
Originally, he was just keeping it in Woodville hands (and away from Richard--heroic, that!). Richard was still protector when he left. Tudor must have persuaded him that he was an ally against Richard once Richard became king. He would hardly have told Edward ex-V's maternal uncle that he was a rival to Edward as well as Richard.
Carol, not sure that made any sense
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-22 13:56:55
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Who is the author? Is it a novel?
Carol responds:
The book is "The Last Knight Errant: Sir Edward Woodville and the Age of Chivalry" by Christopher Wilkins. It's billed as the first biography of "this pivotal figure." {Cough! Cough! If it's not fiction, it's Tudor propaganda.]
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Knight-Errant-Woodville-Chivalry/dp/1848851499
Off to my cataract surgery appointment!
Carol
>
> Who is the author? Is it a novel?
Carol responds:
The book is "The Last Knight Errant: Sir Edward Woodville and the Age of Chivalry" by Christopher Wilkins. It's billed as the first biography of "this pivotal figure." {Cough! Cough! If it's not fiction, it's Tudor propaganda.]
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Knight-Errant-Woodville-Chivalry/dp/1848851499
Off to my cataract surgery appointment!
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-22 14:28:14
I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Originally, he was just keeping it in Woodville hands (and away from Richard--heroic, that!). Richard was still protector when he left. Tudor must have persuaded him that he was an ally against Richard once Richard became king. He would hardly have told Edward ex-V's maternal uncle that he was a rival to Edward as well as Richard.
>
> Carol, not sure that made any sense
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't someone say that he took some of the treasure to Tudor when he joined him. Not my idea of a true hero I have to say.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Originally, he was just keeping it in Woodville hands (and away from Richard--heroic, that!). Richard was still protector when he left. Tudor must have persuaded him that he was an ally against Richard once Richard became king. He would hardly have told Edward ex-V's maternal uncle that he was a rival to Edward as well as Richard.
>
> Carol, not sure that made any sense
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 17:23:31
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 17:31:55
Sounds good.
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 17:37:13
Carol, great!good to hear your eyes are working better!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 17:56:02
Perhaps for the good of the cause, when these really egregious books are
published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
then writing scathing reviews?!?
A J
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in
> his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled
> out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started
> circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward
> Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in
> Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels
> and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to
> go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would
> be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what
> sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The
> book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the
> first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye
> is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in
> the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
then writing scathing reviews?!?
A J
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in
> his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled
> out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started
> circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward
> Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in
> Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels
> and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to
> go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would
> be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what
> sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The
> book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the
> first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye
> is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in
> the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 17:59:55
OT...I second that!......Eileen :0)
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, great!good to hear your eyes are working better!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> >
> > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, great!good to hear your eyes are working better!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> >
> > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 18:48:19
Do I detect a note of irony in your remarks regarding "the honour" it would be for us to read and digest some of the most indigestible rubbish published for profit and fifteen minutes of fame?
Elaine
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps for the good of the cause, when these really egregious books are
> published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
> then writing scathing reviews?!?
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> > "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in
> > his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled
> > out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started
> > circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward
> > Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in
> > Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels
> > and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to
> > go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would
> > be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what
> > sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The
> > book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> >
> > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the
> > first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> > eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye
> > is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in
> > the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Elaine
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps for the good of the cause, when these really egregious books are
> published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
> then writing scathing reviews?!?
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> > "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in
> > his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled
> > out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started
> > circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward
> > Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in
> > Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels
> > and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to
> > go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would
> > be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what
> > sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The
> > book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> >
> > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the
> > first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> > eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye
> > is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in
> > the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 20:12:59
$63.00? I wouldn't pay that for much less than a book proving that E IV really did marry Eleanor (and I mean the marriage certificate!).
Glad to hear the op went well.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Glad to hear the op went well.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 20:18:33
Do you mean the dreadful Deb?
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Sounds good.
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Sounds good.
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 21:14:15
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
Inter-library loan, perhaps...?
>
> It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
Inter-library loan, perhaps...?
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 21:57:18
That's the one. So far in denial she must be careful of the crocodiles. I Googled Jasper during the post-writing of my book and someone by that name turned up. Given how passionately she flies the dragon, I would love to see her face when JA-H shows them to have been Beauforts (or even Swynfords).
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Do you mean the dreadful Deb?
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Sounds good.
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Do you mean the dreadful Deb?
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
Sounds good.
PS The female Wikipedia editor who amends true statements about Lady Eleanor is quite possibly Jasper "Tudor"'s biographer. His own entry defines him as coming from a "noble family".
Excuse me while I sew my sides back together!
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hastings execution
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
Carol responds:
Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
Carol
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 22:01:01
Yes - a little bit of tongue in cheek.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to miss some genuine bit of useful
evidence, just because I can't personally stomach the attitudes being
expressed by the author.
A J
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Do I detect a note of irony in your remarks regarding "the honour" it
> would be for us to read and digest some of the most indigestible rubbish
> published for profit and fifteen minutes of fame?
> Elaine
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps for the good of the cause, when these really egregious books are
> > published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
> > then writing scathing reviews?!?
> >
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> > > "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he
> threw in
> > > his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were
> smuggled
> > > out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed
> started
> > > circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit
> Edward
> > > Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved
> in
> > > Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of
> rebels
> > > and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried
> to
> > > go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It
> would
> > > be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see
> what
> > > sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket.
> The
> > > book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> > >
> > > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for
> the
> > > first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> > > eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The
> other eye
> > > is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone
> else in
> > > the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend
> it.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to miss some genuine bit of useful
evidence, just because I can't personally stomach the attitudes being
expressed by the author.
A J
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Do I detect a note of irony in your remarks regarding "the honour" it
> would be for us to read and digest some of the most indigestible rubbish
> published for profit and fifteen minutes of fame?
> Elaine
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps for the good of the cause, when these really egregious books are
> > published, we should "draw straws" for the honor of wading through them &
> > then writing scathing reviews?!?
> >
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a
> > > "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he
> threw in
> > > his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were
> smuggled
> > > out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed
> started
> > > circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit
> Edward
> > > Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved
> in
> > > Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of
> rebels
> > > and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried
> to
> > > go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It
> would
> > > be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see
> what
> > > sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket.
> The
> > > book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
> > >
> > > OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for
> the
> > > first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good
> > > eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The
> other eye
> > > is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone
> else in
> > > the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend
> it.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Hastings execution
2013-04-24 22:50:08
Thank you Carol, interesting information. The fact that Dorset tried to come back is maybe a bit more possible proof of the boys being safe. Edward Woodville not going back says a lot about him.
I hope that you are ok after your op. My friend said the same thing after her cataract op. She thought she would have to replace her furniture because it was faded. She realised after the op that it was fine.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
I hope that you are ok after your op. My friend said the same thing after her cataract op. She thought she would have to replace her furniture because it was faded. She realised after the op that it was fine.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean, that he went to Tudor who he thought of as a "supporter" of Edward as king instead of Richard. I wonder when he threw in his lot with Tudor if, as is entirely possible, the Princes were smuggled out of the country with the knowledge of Elizabeth Woodville?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly at the time the rumors that E4's sons were killed started circulating. I suspect that Henry (or Morton) used them to recruit Edward Woodville (with his stolen treasure) to Tudor's cause. He was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. At that time, Dorset was also on the list of rebels and traitors though it seems that he later learned the truth and tried to go back to Richard. As far as I know, Edward Woodville never did. It would be interesting to read that biography, if I could stomach it, to see what sources the author used, but I don't want to put money in his pocket. The book, if I recall correctly, costs $63.00.
>
> OT, you can see that I'm back. The cataract surgery went well and, for the first time ever, I can read without glasses (using only the newly good eye). I've had the lens removed from my glasses on that side. The other eye is as bad as ever, but I can't afford surgery on it yet. If anyone else in the group has cataracts and is considering surgery, I highly recommend it.
>
> Carol
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.