Elizabeth Woodville again
Elizabeth Woodville again
2013-04-23 15:52:27
I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower
Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
speculation.
Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
A J
David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower
Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
speculation.
Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
A J
Re: Elizabeth Woodville again
2013-04-23 16:32:54
I have both. Baldwin is a Ricardian scholar who knows his stuff but has an annoying tendency to sit on the fence when it comes to summing up. I know we all joke about speculation, but there has to be a certain element or why write the book? As with his biography of Richard he sits on the fence re the princes - it could have been John Howard because he ordered quicklime for the Tower, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham with or without Richard's knowledge, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham and Henry found out, but perhaps not. So he never sticks his head above the parapet. Overall do we learn much more about Elizabeth - not a lot. It just seems to be a summary of everyone else's work.
Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then I am a Ricardian.
Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help. H
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower
Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
speculation.
Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
A J
Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then I am a Ricardian.
Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help. H
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower
Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
speculation.
Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
A J
Re: Elizabeth Woodville again
2013-04-23 16:37:31
Thanks. It sounds as if they will not help me very much.
A J
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have both. Baldwin is a Ricardian scholar who knows his stuff but has an
> annoying tendency to sit on the fence when it comes to summing up. I know
> we all joke about speculation, but there has to be a certain element or why
> write the book? As with his biography of Richard he sits on the fence re
> the princes - it could have been John Howard because he ordered quicklime
> for the Tower, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham with or
> without Richard's knowledge, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham
> and Henry found out, but perhaps not. So he never sticks his head above the
> parapet. Overall do we learn much more about Elizabeth - not a lot. It just
> seems to be a summary of everyone else's work.
>
> Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps
> enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and
> plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And
> according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn
> much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then
> I am a Ricardian.
>
> Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help.
> H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
>
>
>
>
>
> I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
>
> David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the
> Tower
> Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
>
> What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
> well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
> speculation.
>
> Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A J
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have both. Baldwin is a Ricardian scholar who knows his stuff but has an
> annoying tendency to sit on the fence when it comes to summing up. I know
> we all joke about speculation, but there has to be a certain element or why
> write the book? As with his biography of Richard he sits on the fence re
> the princes - it could have been John Howard because he ordered quicklime
> for the Tower, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham with or
> without Richard's knowledge, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham
> and Henry found out, but perhaps not. So he never sticks his head above the
> parapet. Overall do we learn much more about Elizabeth - not a lot. It just
> seems to be a summary of everyone else's work.
>
> Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps
> enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and
> plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And
> according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn
> much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then
> I am a Ricardian.
>
> Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help.
> H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
>
>
>
>
>
> I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
>
> David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the
> Tower
> Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
>
> What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
> well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
> speculation.
>
> Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Elizabeth Woodville again
2013-04-23 16:39:30
Not unless you can buy them very cheap or borrow them.
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville again
Thanks. It sounds as if they will not help me very much.
A J
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have both. Baldwin is a Ricardian scholar who knows his stuff but has an
> annoying tendency to sit on the fence when it comes to summing up. I know
> we all joke about speculation, but there has to be a certain element or why
> write the book? As with his biography of Richard he sits on the fence re
> the princes - it could have been John Howard because he ordered quicklime
> for the Tower, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham with or
> without Richard's knowledge, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham
> and Henry found out, but perhaps not. So he never sticks his head above the
> parapet. Overall do we learn much more about Elizabeth - not a lot. It just
> seems to be a summary of everyone else's work.
>
> Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps
> enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and
> plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And
> according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn
> much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then
> I am a Ricardian.
>
> Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help.
> H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
>
>
>
>
>
> I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
>
> David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the
> Tower
> Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
>
> What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
> well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
> speculation.
>
> Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville again
Thanks. It sounds as if they will not help me very much.
A J
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have both. Baldwin is a Ricardian scholar who knows his stuff but has an
> annoying tendency to sit on the fence when it comes to summing up. I know
> we all joke about speculation, but there has to be a certain element or why
> write the book? As with his biography of Richard he sits on the fence re
> the princes - it could have been John Howard because he ordered quicklime
> for the Tower, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham with or
> without Richard's knowledge, but perhaps not. It could have been Buckingham
> and Henry found out, but perhaps not. So he never sticks his head above the
> parapet. Overall do we learn much more about Elizabeth - not a lot. It just
> seems to be a summary of everyone else's work.
>
> Okerlund's work belongs to a series edited by Alison Weir, so perhaps
> enough said. Richard is the enemy, he could have poisoned his wife and
> plotted to marry his niece. It's suggested, but not of course proved. And
> according to Okerlund H7 treated Elizabeth 'honourably'. And we don't learn
> much else except to prop up bias. It's a book that makes me cross, but then
> I am a Ricardian.
>
> Others may have other opinions, these are just mine and I hope they help.
> H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Elizabeth Woodville again
>
>
>
>
>
> I see that there are a couple of modern books about EW.
>
> David Baldwin (2005) Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the
> Tower
> Arlene Okerlund (2006) Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen
>
> What are your opinions about these efforts? As usual I am looking for
> well-sourced material that can give me some dates & places to anchor future
> speculation.
>
> Any other recommendations for source material about her life?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links