Richard's Letter to Russell

There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?

"By the king RR' \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
thaym the fact of an entrepriuse / as we doubte nat . ye have herd , bee attached and in warde . we desir' and wol you that ye / doo make our
letters of commission to such personnes . as by you . and our counsaill . shalbee advised forto / sitte upon thaym . and to procede to the due
execucion of our lawes in that behalve . ffaille / ye nat herof as our
perfaite trust is in you . Yeven undre our signet at this Manoir of
Mynster / lovel the xxixth day Juyll \ Herbert \ Endorsed: To the Right
Reverend fader in god our Right trusti / and welbiloved the Bishop' of
Lincoln' our / Chauncellr' of England. [PRIVY SEAL WARRANT SENT BY
RICHARD III FROM MINSTER LOVELL. / PRO C81/1392 No 1 / From P
Tudor-Craig, Richard III, 2nd ed (London, 1977), p 33.]"

Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
>
> "By the king ‘RR’ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]

Carol responds:

The three interpretations I'm familiar with are

1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.

2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.

3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.

I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.

Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?

Carol

If it was option No 2, I can scarcely credit that Richard have handed it
off to be addressed by his council, that he would not have addressed it in
person. Which leaves a failed "entrepriuse" of some sort. If these "certaine
personnes" were "sat upon," and a verdict reached that required execution
wouldn't that be recorded or noted somewhere? even if the decision was
reached in a council for which no minutes seem to exist?? Do we have any
idea where Richard's High Constable was at that time?

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:01 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular
> letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think
> this letter can be interpreted?
> >
> > "By the king ýýýRRýýý \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and
> welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine
> personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
>
> 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would
> attempt that and why I can't guess.
>
> 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the
> authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
>
> 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them
> against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters).
> If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to
> remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor
> that they were dead.
>
> I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially
> after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept
> explanation 3.
>
> Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there.
> Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of
> interest?
>
> Carol
>
>
>

I like Facebook:) It is immediate and more conversational. This is being discussed at the "Ricardian" forum run by Stephen. Many from this forum are in that group.....
Can I copy your response there?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> >
> > "By the king RR' \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
>
> 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
>
> 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
>
> 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
>
> I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
>
> Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
>
> Carol
>
>

I think the 3rd seems most logical.
What do you think the "ward" means? They wrote o strangely then.....

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:14 PM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> If it was option No 2, I can scarcely credit that Richard have handed it
> off to be addressed by his council, that he would not have addressed it in
> person. Which leaves a failed "entrepriuse" of some sort. If these "certaine
> personnes" were "sat upon," and a verdict reached that required execution
> wouldn't that be recorded or noted somewhere? even if the decision was
> reached in a council for which no minutes seem to exist?? Do we have any
> idea where Richard's High Constable was at that time?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:01 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular
>> letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think
>> this letter can be interpreted?
>>>
>>> "By the king RR' \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and
>> welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine
>> personnes of such as of late had taken upon
>>> thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
>>
>> 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would
>> attempt that and why I can't guess.
>>
>> 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the
>> authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
>> Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
>> Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
>>
>> 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them
>> against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters).
>> If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to
>> remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor
>> that they were dead.
>>
>> I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially
>> after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept
>> explanation 3.
>>
>> Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there.
>> Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of
>> interest?
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> I think the 3rd seems most logical.
What do you think the "ward" means? They wrote o strangely then.....

Well, a warden guards prisoners, so I'd assume "in warde" means "in
custody".

Of course, we don't know that the "enterprise" had anything to do with the
boys. It's clearly something secret which Richard doesn't want some casual
messenger to read about, but it might be something to do with trying to
recover the missing treasure, or with espionage, or international
relationships. The persons might be pirates who had raided ships belonging
to a friendly power, or somebody who was conspiring with the Duke of Albany
to overthrow the King of Scots - any of those things.

No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...

This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?

Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> >
> > "By the king ‘RR’ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
>
> 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
>
> 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
>
> 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
>
> I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
>
> Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
>
> Carol
>

May I add the OBVIOUS  win the battle!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...

This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?

Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> >
> > "By the king â¬ÜRRâ¬" \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
>
> 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
>
> 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
>
> 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
>
> I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
>
> Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
>
> Carol
>

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> May I add the OBVIOUS  win the battle!

Which probably amounts to, send for the York levies at least a week earlier
than he in fact did, so that they might actually *get there in time for the
battle*. Do not engage the enemy until your reinforcements have arrived.

Perhaps "Charismatic people often think they are [lucky]" explains that
charge....

OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> May I add the OBVIOUS â€" win the battle!
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
>
> This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > >
> > > "By the king ‘RR’ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> >
> > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> >
> > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> >
> > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> >
> > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> >
> > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

> OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
>
Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > May I add the OBVIOUS â¬" win the battle!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> >
> > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > >
> > > > "By the king ââ¬ËSRRââ¬â¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > >
> > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > >
> > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > >
> > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > >
> > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > >
> > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> >
> Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > May I add the OBVIOUS â€" win the battle!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > >
> > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > >
> > > > > "By the king â€ËÅ"RR’ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > >
> > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > >
> > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > >
> > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
> > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> >
> Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
> > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > >
> > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > >
> > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > >
> > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > >
> > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > >
> > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Pamela.as you say its all interesting speculation....Richard's losses must have had some impact on his mindset and his closest losses, those of Anne and EoM would have been still quite raw. And then again, what I know about battles you can put on a postage stamp, but I should imagine that some decisions are made in split seconds and whether this is what happened I know not. Im sure he felt that God was on his side as he was the annointed King that day something which Weasle or his mother were unable to grasp...swines...eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS â€" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"RRÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed&..I always hesitate to post, because I have done almost zero real studying. I am reading like mad, but since there are others so far ahead, in all areas, if defer to their knowledge.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



Pamela.as you say its all interesting speculation....Richard's losses must have had some impact on his mindset and his closest losses, those of Anne and EoM would have been still quite raw. And then again, what I know about battles you can put on a postage stamp, but I should imagine that some decisions are made in split seconds and whether this is what happened I know not. Im sure he felt that God was on his side as he was the annointed King that day something which Weasle or his mother were unable to grasp...swines...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@%3cmailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS Ò¢ââ¬a¬" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬹Ã&"RRÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.

But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and if
not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this was
the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.

Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
knack of managing them is an interesting question.

A J


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> interesting speculation.
>
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> had still been alive?
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> ...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:
> cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right
> Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until the next generation.
 
I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years, those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell, even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick, Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475 this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings, Buckingham) betrayed him.
 
Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
 
Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward, Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
 
Sorry to go on so much.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


 

I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.

But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and if
not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this was
the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.

Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
knack of managing them is an interesting question.

A J

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> interesting speculation.
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> had still been alive?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> ...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:
> cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right
> Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela...even with all the studying in the world sometimes it seems it is still surmising and guesswork...somethings we will never know...how cruel :0/

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agreed…..I always hesitate to post, because I have done almost zero real studying. I am reading like mad, but since there are others so far ahead, in all areas, if defer to their knowledge.
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> Pamela.as you say its all interesting speculation....Richard's losses must have had some impact on his mindset and his closest losses, those of Anne and EoM would have been still quite raw. And then again, what I know about battles you can put on a postage stamp, but I should imagine that some decisions are made in split seconds and whether this is what happened I know not. Im sure he felt that God was on his side as he was the annointed King that day something which Weasle or his mother were unable to grasp...swines...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@<mailto:pbain@>> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > >
> > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@%3cmailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" win the battle!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > >
> > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "By the king ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‹Å"RRÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'¢â€žÂ¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

AJ...very good post...re your remark '..did he recognise those who had their own agendas but hadnt the knack of managing them'...I have often wondered many times what exactly he could have done about MB...? I know there have been numerous suggestions as to what could have been done with this extremely dangerous woman but seriously...He was in between a rock and a hard place...what could he do with her without causing serious problems with Stanley......Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Whether he wasn't a
> good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> knack of managing them is an interesting question.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> > interesting speculation.
> >
> > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > had still been alive?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > ...<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > >
> > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> > Live today and fight another day.......
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:
> > cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS â€" win the battle!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > >
> > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "By the king ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"RRÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ \ Right
> > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > taken upon
> > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> > of interest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



> Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were
> venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward,
> Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.

Wasn't it Jeremy Potter who rather unkindly described him as a country
squire who'd been promoted to his level of incompetence? That's a bit
unfair - he *was* pretty competent - but it makes the point that he didn't
really act the way kings were expected to act and was probably a bit out of
his depth, especially after Ann died.

This is why my favourite historical what-if is one in which Richard and
Henry make peace and Henry ends up as Richard's Lord Chancellor. Richard's
charisma, honesty and earnest concern for the people and Henry's deviousness
and financial acumen would have made one brilliant king between them.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen

Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.

And I think that's the key to it - we were coming into the age of Machiavelli's prince. Morton, MB in particular would have fitted beautifully into the court of the Borgias. Richard, no; he longed to be King Arthur.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 16:50
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

 

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

> Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen

Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.

I still wish we change the ending though...:0/

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
> > Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> > have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> > Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> > him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen
>
> Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
> but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
> generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
> wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
> Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.
>

I think you have summed it up Hilary......

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And I think that's the key to it - we were coming into the age of Machiavelli's prince. Morton, MB in particular would have fitted beautifully into the court of the Borgias. Richard, no; he longed to be King Arthur.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 16:50
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>  
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
> > Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> > have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> > Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> > him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen
>
> Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
> but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
> generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
> wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
> Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Claire M Jordan wrote:

//snip//
"This is why my favourite historical what-if is one in which Richard and
Henry make peace and Henry ends up as Richard's Lord Chancellor. Richard's
charisma, honesty and earnest concern for the people and Henry's deviousness
and financial acumen would have made one brilliant king between them."

Doug here:
That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
Almost as rare is the person who recognizes their limitations and finds and,
most importantly, supports, those who complement their own
abilities/qualites. Perhaps that's part of the reason people are attracted
to monarchs such as Elizabeth I and Charles II, they knew their limitations?
Well, mostly...
Doug

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> And I think that's the key to it - we were coming into the age of
> Machiavelli's prince. Morton, MB in particular would have fitted
> beautifully into the court of the Borgias. Richard, no; he longed to be
> King Arthur.

Or Charlemagne - think of his comment to von Poppelau about wanting to stand
against the Turks with just his own people and no allies....

Mind, Arthur does some disreputable things in the legends, including killing
children to protect his own status. Le Mort d'Arthur was being written
during Richard's reign, wasn't it, so it's possible some of the stories in
it relate to current gossip - but if so Malory stil makes his king a great
hero.

Oh yes, I so wish that....... Another book idea, the WHAT IF!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



I still wish we change the ending though...:0/

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
> > Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> > have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> > Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> > him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen
>
> Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
> but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
> generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
> wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
> Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
responsibilities are rarely found in one person!

James IV of Scotland probably came as close as anybody has ever done - but
the very qualities of intellectual curiosity which helped to make him a
great and innovative leader were his downfall, because he was a gadget-freak
who loved anything newfangled, and so went into battle using untried
techniqes.

I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to deal with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them, and he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone else who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am practicing my spitting even as I type.
Sandra
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

> That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
responsibilities are rarely found in one person!

Didnt James get blown up by one of his own cannons....?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
> > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
>
> James IV of Scotland probably came as close as anybody has ever done - but
> the very qualities of intellectual curiosity which helped to make him a
> great and innovative leader were his downfall, because he was a gadget-freak
> who loved anything newfangled, and so went into battle using untried
> techniqes.
>

Or a time machine in which one can go back and change important events where the results had gone all wrong....such as the Titanic...."Braaaaaaake,,,turn leeeeffffttt"
Its never been a fair world has it? eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, I so wish that....... Another book idea, the WHAT IF!
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I still wish we change the ending though...:0/
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@<mailto:whitehound@>> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> > > Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> > > have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> > > Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> > > him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen
> >
> > Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
> > but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
> > generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
> > wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
> > Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

If it was, was I would have been able to be a model for Raphael!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell



Or a time machine in which one can go back and change important events where the results had gone all wrong....such as the Titanic...."Braaaaaaake,,,turn leeeeffffttt"
Its never been a fair world has it? eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, I so wish that....... Another book idea, the WHAT IF!
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:08 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I still wish we change the ending though...:0/
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@<mailto:whitehound@>> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> > > Of course if he had had the same mindset as her grandson then there would
> > > have been a very swift solution to people that engaged in plotting..but
> > > Richard was cut from different material. This was to prove the undoing of
> > > him....and yet...I wouldnt change him...eileen
> >
> > Well said. Some of the things he *could* have done might have saved him,
> > but only at the cost of no longer being the (for the times) unusually
> > generous, fair-minded and admirable person he seems to have been. It
> > wouldn't have been worth it, if the price of survival was to be
> > Machiavelli's prince rather than a chivalrous one.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?

Carol responds:

Without question. True, if Richard had died in battle with his son alive, his son would become king, but for how long? And even if he weren't deposed and killed by Tudor's forces (assuming that Tudor survived), Richard would know all too well the problems (factionalism, civil war), etc., that arose from having a child king. The Wars of the Roses arose in part because Henry V died young, leaving an infant son to be manipulated by rival factions. Similar problems would have arisen under his Woodville-puppet nephew (as the Protectorate illustrates). Richard would never have risked confronting Tudor's forces in a direct charge if he'd had a living legitimate son who might lose his father with dire consequences for both child and kingdom. It's harder to say what he would have done with his son dead but his wife alive. I like to think that he would have taken fewer risks for her sake as well as his son's. After all, what would her future have been under Henry Tudor with Richard dead? At best, she would have been sent to Bermondsey Abbey as EW was later. At worst, she might have been confined to the deepest recesses of the Tower for life like Edward of Warwick.

Carol

I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the wrong people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from losing John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William Stanley got him.

Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes, so he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I don't think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally good.

Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But Henry Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards, frequent tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The difference is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth, there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in battle as we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually came to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very sorry Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way inevitable.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to deal with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them, and he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone else who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am practicing my spitting even as I type.
> Sandra
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
> > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
throne from Edward V.

I find it much more credible that he was unpopular because he was an
unknown quantity to some of the factions he had to deal with and a known
quantity to others who realized they were not so likely to prosper under
his administration as they had been (& would be again under Henry VII).

A J


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and
> administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the wrong
> people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William
> Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on
> foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from losing
> John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William
> Stanley got him.
>
> Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes, so
> he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms
> regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I don't
> think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally good.
>
> Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But Henry
> Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards, frequent
> tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The difference
> is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth,
> there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in battle as
> we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually came
> to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the
> throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very sorry
> Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way inevitable.
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to deal
> with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of
> circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them, and
> he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone else
> who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am
> practicing my spitting even as I type.
> > Sandra
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> > > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> > abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> > responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

That is a valid reason as well. But my point is every change in administration upset the apple cart. Richard can't be less well known than Tudor, who spent his adult years in exile. Judging from how many Plantagenets and others lost their heads to Tudor, Richard can't be more unpopular either. Even William Stanley, who thought he should prosper under Tudor, didn't feel he got his due, neither did Northumberland. Tudor was more ruthless and cowardly and lucky, hence he survived longer. It was not because he didn't upset the establishment when he became king.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
> throne from Edward V.
>
> I find it much more credible that he was unpopular because he was an
> unknown quantity to some of the factions he had to deal with and a known
> quantity to others who realized they were not so likely to prosper under
> his administration as they had been (& would be again under Henry VII).
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and
> > administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the wrong
> > people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William
> > Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on
> > foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from losing
> > John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William
> > Stanley got him.
> >
> > Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes, so
> > he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms
> > regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I don't
> > think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally good.
> >
> > Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But Henry
> > Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards, frequent
> > tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The difference
> > is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth,
> > there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in battle as
> > we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually came
> > to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the
> > throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very sorry
> > Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way inevitable.
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to deal
> > with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of
> > circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them, and
> > he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone else
> > who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am
> > practicing my spitting even as I type.
> > > Sandra
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > >
> > > > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> > > abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> > > responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Wasn't it Jeremy Potter who rather unkindly described him as a country squire who'd been promoted to his level of incompetence? That's a bit unfair - he *was* pretty competent - but it makes the point that he didn't really act the way kings were expected to act and was probably a bit out of his depth, especially after Ann died. [snip]

Carol responds:

I doubt that it was Jeremy Potter. Wasn't it the man who wrote "The Peter Principle"? And I don't think he called Richard a country squire. He acknowledged his competence in administering a region but thought that a whole country, which included regions hostile or at best indifferent to him, was beyond his competence. I agree that it's unfair--he was handed a difficult proposition (become king or remain protector to a possibly illegitimate king who would soon gain his majority and take revenge on those who had attempted to depose him), and from there, his luck got worse, what with betrayals and deaths. Nevertheless, I think that once his nephews were safely out of the country, kept from gaining followers by their very obscurity, Henry Tudor was dead, and Richard was safely married to Joanna of Portugal and the father of at least one son, he would have had time to rule as he wanted and provide proper training for his sons before the scoliosis started to make his life difficult around age fifty. He would also have had time to right more wrongs, perhaps institute the first permanent postal system, and become involved in the exploration of foreign lands. Within five or ten years, certainly within twenty, he would have become a much-loved king. Any diehard Lancastrians would have been pacified by the marriage to a true Lancastrian heir, and any would-be Yorkist rebels deterred by not knowing the whereabouts of Edward V and not having a general to lead them. Richard could easily put down any rebellions without participating in them personally, perhaps relying on John, Earl of Lincoln as Edward had relied on him--but without growing soft and morally corrupt.

Don't know how I got to that point when I was just intending to mention "The Peter Principle"!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> I doubt that it was Jeremy Potter. Wasn't it the man who wrote "The Peter
> Principle"?

Nah, it was a prominent Ricardian author, riffing off the Peter Principle -
either in a book or in an article in The Ricardian. I'm pretty sure it was
Potter! I thought at the time (1980-ish) that it was a little unfair, but a
welcome antidote to too much breathy reverence - not least because it
suggested engagement with Richard as a man rather than as an archetype.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> Didnt James get blown up by one of his own cannons....?

I don't know - but he went into battle using some new military formation his
men hadn't had the chance to practice. And he spent a fortune building The
Great Michael - which I think was the biggest ship in the world at the
time - apparently just so he could say his was the biggest one (ahem), when
a fleet of normal-sized ships would have been far more use.

As a result, he was not only the author of Scotland's Golden Age but of her
most crushing military defeat :(

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> But Henry Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards,

Do we know when Henry started surrounding himself with bodyguards? If it
was later than June 1488, it may have been a response to the brutal murder
of James III of Scotland by his own men.

I agree that every change in administration potentially upsets the apple
cart, and perhaps I am mis-understanding your point.

That said, your reasoning leds to the proposition that Edward V would have
been unpopular as well, since he
was also a
change in the existing order.

That is a very different concept than saying that Richard "wasn't popular
because he took the throne from Edward V."

A J

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:17 PM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> That is a valid reason as well. But my point is every change in
> administration upset the apple cart. Richard can't be less well known than
> Tudor, who spent his adult years in exile. Judging from how many
> Plantagenets and others lost their heads to Tudor, Richard can't be more
> unpopular either. Even William Stanley, who thought he should prosper under
> Tudor, didn't feel he got his due, neither did Northumberland. Tudor was
> more ruthless and cowardly and lucky, hence he survived longer. It was not
> because he didn't upset the establishment when he became king.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
> > throne from Edward V.
> >
> > I find it much more credible that he was unpopular because he was an
> > unknown quantity to some of the factions he had to deal with and a known
> > quantity to others who realized they were not so likely to prosper under
> > his administration as they had been (& would be again under Henry VII).
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and
> > > administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the
> wrong
> > > people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William
> > > Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on
> > > foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from
> losing
> > > John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William
> > > Stanley got him.
> > >
> > > Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes,
> so
> > > he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms
> > > regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I
> don't
> > > think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally
> good.
> > >
> > > Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But
> Henry
> > > Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards,
> frequent
> > > tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The
> difference
> > > is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth,
> > > there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in
> battle as
> > > we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually
> came
> > > to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the
> > > throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very
> sorry
> > > Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way
> inevitable.
> > >
> > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to
> deal
> > > with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of
> > > circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them,
> and
> > > he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone
> else
> > > who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am
> > > practicing my spitting even as I type.
> > > > Sandra
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to
> Russell
> > > >
> > > > > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> > > > abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> > > > responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

That is true, indeed Edward V [more about the Woodville take over through a minor king] was not popular, that led to Richard III's election by parliament. My point is that unexpected changes in succession is more likely to upset the long established expectations of political factions. That is why I compared Richard III to Edward IV, Henry IV and so on.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that every change in administration potentially upsets the apple
> cart, and perhaps I am mis-understanding your point.
>
> That said, your reasoning leds to the proposition that Edward V would have
> been unpopular as well, since he
> was also a
> change in the existing order.
>
> That is a very different concept than saying that Richard "wasn't popular
> because he took the throne from Edward V."
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:17 PM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That is a valid reason as well. But my point is every change in
> > administration upset the apple cart. Richard can't be less well known than
> > Tudor, who spent his adult years in exile. Judging from how many
> > Plantagenets and others lost their heads to Tudor, Richard can't be more
> > unpopular either. Even William Stanley, who thought he should prosper under
> > Tudor, didn't feel he got his due, neither did Northumberland. Tudor was
> > more ruthless and cowardly and lucky, hence he survived longer. It was not
> > because he didn't upset the establishment when he became king.
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
> > > throne from Edward V.
> > >
> > > I find it much more credible that he was unpopular because he was an
> > > unknown quantity to some of the factions he had to deal with and a known
> > > quantity to others who realized they were not so likely to prosper under
> > > his administration as they had been (& would be again under Henry VII).
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hli4 <hli4@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and
> > > > administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the
> > wrong
> > > > people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William
> > > > Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on
> > > > foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from
> > losing
> > > > John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William
> > > > Stanley got him.
> > > >
> > > > Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes,
> > so
> > > > he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms
> > > > regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I
> > don't
> > > > think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally
> > good.
> > > >
> > > > Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But
> > Henry
> > > > Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards,
> > frequent
> > > > tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The
> > difference
> > > > is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth,
> > > > there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in
> > battle as
> > > > we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually
> > came
> > > > to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the
> > > > throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very
> > sorry
> > > > Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way
> > inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to
> > deal
> > > > with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of
> > > > circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them,
> > and
> > > > he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone
> > else
> > > > who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am
> > > > practicing my spitting even as I type.
> > > > > Sandra
> > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to
> > Russell
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> > > > > abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> > > > > responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

> > > Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
> > > throne from Edward V.

I realized that use of word "popular" maybe the problem. I was trying to avoid using the word "usurpation". In any case, let me rephrase, "Richard faced political dissent because he took over the throne." However his circumstance was not that different from Henry VII, and Edward IV and so on. Had luck turned out differently, and he eliminated Henry Tudor at Bosworth, he could have overcome these political difficulties over time, and would have been a much better king than Tudor.

--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> That is true, indeed Edward V [more about the Woodville take over through a minor king] was not popular, that led to Richard III's election by parliament. My point is that unexpected changes in succession is more likely to upset the long established expectations of political factions. That is why I compared Richard III to Edward IV, Henry IV and so on.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that every change in administration potentially upsets the apple
> > cart, and perhaps I am mis-understanding your point.
> >
> > That said, your reasoning leds to the proposition that Edward V would have
> > been unpopular as well, since he
> > was also a
> > change in the existing order.
> >
> > That is a very different concept than saying that Richard "wasn't popular
> > because he took the throne from Edward V."
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:17 PM, hli4 <hli4@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > That is a valid reason as well. But my point is every change in
> > > administration upset the apple cart. Richard can't be less well known than
> > > Tudor, who spent his adult years in exile. Judging from how many
> > > Plantagenets and others lost their heads to Tudor, Richard can't be more
> > > unpopular either. Even William Stanley, who thought he should prosper under
> > > Tudor, didn't feel he got his due, neither did Northumberland. Tudor was
> > > more ruthless and cowardly and lucky, hence he survived longer. It was not
> > > because he didn't upset the establishment when he became king.
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - I'm not convinced that Richard was unpopular because he took the
> > > > throne from Edward V.
> > > >
> > > > I find it much more credible that he was unpopular because he was an
> > > > unknown quantity to some of the factions he had to deal with and a known
> > > > quantity to others who realized they were not so likely to prosper under
> > > > his administration as they had been (& would be again under Henry VII).
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, hli4 <hli4@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Richard was more competent than other nobles as a law maker and
> > > > > administrator and military commander. His fatal flaw was trusting the
> > > wrong
> > > > > people[re Buckingham, Northumberland], not ruthless enough [re William
> > > > > Stanley, Margette Beaufort, John Morton], not spending as much time on
> > > > > foreign policy [re. Brittany, France], and bad luck at Bosworth from
> > > losing
> > > > > John Howard early in the battle, and not getting Tudor before William
> > > > > Stanley got him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of his job as a Duke was to settle land and other civil disputes,
> > > so
> > > > > he had seen enough dishonest side of people, hence his legal reforms
> > > > > regarding clear title and jurors to declare conflict of interest. I
> > > don't
> > > > > think he was in any way naive enough to think people are generally
> > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard wasn't popular because he took the throne from Edward V. But
> > > Henry
> > > > > Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards,
> > > frequent
> > > > > tax revolts,and supports for other claimants to the throne. The
> > > difference
> > > > > is Tudor survived and wrote history. If Richard succeeded at Bosworth,
> > > > > there was a good chance he could have, but nothing is certain in
> > > battle as
> > > > > we well know, he could hardly do worse than Tudor. People eventually
> > > came
> > > > > to accept Henry VII, Edward IV, Henry IV, Edward III who all took the
> > > > > throne, often with a lot less justification than Richard. I am very
> > > sorry
> > > > > Richard died at Bosworth, but I don't believe it was in any way
> > > inevitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I regard Richard as a great man who simply was not nasty enough to
> > > deal
> > > > > with the slimy numbnuts around him. If ever a man was the victim of
> > > > > circumstance, it was Richard III. He was too good for the lot of them,
> > > and
> > > > > he paid the price. A horrible shame. I loathe Edward IV! And everyone
> > > else
> > > > > who did the dirty on Richard. I hope they come back as spittoons! I am
> > > > > practicing my spitting even as I type.
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:18 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to
> > > Russell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's the problem with "personal" rule, though, isn't it? The
> > > > > > abilities/qualities necessary for a single person to meet their
> > > > > > responsibilities are rarely found in one person!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

According to this web site http://yeomenoftheguard.com/

"The original Yeomen of the Guard or Yeomen Archers was created in 1485 to guard the new King, Henry VII.". So it was from the very beginning of Henry Tudor's regime.


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: hli4
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
> > But Henry Tudor was even less popular, judging from his armed body guards,
>
> Do we know when Henry started surrounding himself with bodyguards? If it
> was later than June 1488, it may have been a response to the brutal murder
> of James III of Scotland by his own men.
>

Regarding Henry's bodyguard. Gairdner (!) is most specific that a bodyguard of fifty men, archers and others' was created on the day of the coronation, 30th October, 1485. Just think, if the coronation had been a day later, it would have been the Eve of All Hallows/Halloween. How very appropriate. No doubt clever Henry saw that one coming when he chose the previous day. Perhaps he saw Margaret getting her broomstick out of the cupboard.

Sandra


From: hli4
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:53 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

"The original Yeomen of the Guard or Yeomen Archers was created in 1485 to guard the new King, Henry VII.". So it was from the very beginning of Henry Tudor's regime.

I love it, and have a visual of the little wheels turning in Henry's brain!

On May 1, 2013, at 1:05 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:



Regarding Henryýs bodyguard. Gairdner (!) is most specific that ýa bodyguard of fifty men, archers and othersý was created on the day of the coronation, 30th October, 1485. Just think, if the coronation had been a day later, it would have been the Eve of All Hallows/Halloween. How very appropriate. No doubt clever Henry saw that one coming when he chose the previous day. Perhaps he saw Margaret getting her broomstick out of the cupboard.

Sandra

From: hli4
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:53 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

"The original Yeomen of the Guard or Yeomen Archers was created in 1485 to guard the new King, Henry VII.". So it was from the very beginning of Henry Tudor's regime.

Does anyone know when sandalwood was first used (in any form) in England? I
have a Merriam-Webster 'first known use' date of circa 1511, but can it be
stretched back to 1485 or before?

Sandra

Red sandalwood powder was used in (high class) cookery in the Middle Ages. It was known as saunders or sanders.
Marie

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know when sandalwood was first used (in any form) in England? I
> have a Merriam-Webster 'first known use' date of circa 1511, but can it be
> stretched back to 1485 or before?
>
> Sandra
>

Thank you, Marie. So at least they had it. Any chance of knowing if it was used in another form than just for cooking? To freshen clothes, perhaps?

Sandra

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sandalwood

Red sandalwood powder was used in (high class) cookery in the Middle Ages. It was known as saunders or sanders.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know when sandalwood was first used (in any form) in England? I
> have a Merriam-Webster 'first known use' date of circa 1511, but can it be
> stretched back to 1485 or before?
>
> Sandra
>

I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

I have not been here very long but I am OK with it
Nicole

~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy

To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:49:49 +0100
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


























I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I donýt agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.

The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But Iým the author, and I would say itýs beautiful and moving, wouldnýt I?

I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until itýs time to push up the daisies. So Iým posting this. If you all ignore me, Iýll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.

Even if you turn me down, I do hope youýll still let me pick your brains?????????

Sandra

Good to hear from you. Thank you, Nicole.
Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: NICOLE MASIKA
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:05 PM
To:
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the
Forum...

I have not been here very long but I am OK with it
Nicole


























I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I
have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a
series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about
1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts
exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed.
Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the
Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book,
the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that
some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the
cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a
user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final
copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement
is to be included.

The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all
corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course,
and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences
of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus
written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is
also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian
I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and
certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard
to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual
historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and
moving, wouldn't I?

I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you
all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an
overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go
ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want
is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to
(polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers
know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private
responses are fine.

Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your
brains?????????

Sandra


























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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sandra,
I don't contribute much, but I think any recognition is a good thing.
 
 
 
Vickie

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

 
I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

This is just my HUMBLE opinion, but I think it would be lovely to dedicate it to King Richard III, and all those who have been in his corner. Obviously, I am not a writer, and you can phrase this much better than I. Congratulations&.one of my dreams was to be a writer  that went down/up in flames when I realized I had zero talent. This group includes an amazing list of awesome authors, painters, and scholars.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

Sounds a lovely idea, Sandra.
Just one reservation, though. When you say "the dreaded word 'incest' crops up", can you elucidate? Are you meaning that it crops up in relation to Richard's marriage to Anne?
Marie

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don’t agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I’m the author, and I would say it’s beautiful and moving, wouldn’t I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it’s time to push up the daisies. So I’m posting this. If you all ignore me, I’ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope you’ll still let me pick your brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> And I think that's the key to it - we were coming into the age of Machiavelli's prince. Morton, MB in particular would have fitted beautifully into the court of the Borgias. Richard, no; he longed to be King Arthur.
>
Carol responds:

I agree, Hilary. Unfortunately, the Machiavellian perspective has been applied to the wrong person for centuries.

Even though "The Prince" hadn't been written yet, Mancini seems to have interpreted Richard's actions according to the Italian model, one reason, maybe, why later historians tend to see him through this lens.

Shakespeare is a more obvious reason. He has Richard (as Gloucester in Henry VI, Part 3) anachronistically boasting that he would "set the murderous Machiavel to school." Rhetorical question: How much has "The Prince" (written ca. 1513, published 1532) influenced later views of Richard (via Shakespeare)? I suspect that historians have interpreted the historical Richard's words and actions in a Machiavellian light (despite the anachronism) rather than taking his legislation, letters, etc., at face value. Maybe they should realize that he followed a very different idea of what a "prince" ought to be (as indicated by his books as well as his words and actions).

If Richard had been *more* Machiavellian, he might have survived: "A man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need."

http://www.britaininprint.net/shakespeare/study_tools/machiavelli.html

Does anyone know of a biographer who applies the Machiavellian standard (taken at face value, not as satire) to the Tudors, who certainly were more politically motivated than Richard was and were, like him, in the position of a "new prince" (king) rather than a hereditary one--in Richard's case because he was not the immediate heir and in the Tudors' case because their whole dynasty was based on an act of conquest?

Also, does anyone know when "The Prince" was first published in English? Shakespeare had certainly read it by 1590 (first performance of the Henry VI plays), and he must have read it in English, not the original Italian.

Carol

Absolutely!  And I can't wait to read the books.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2013, 18:49
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

 
I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

Thank you, Pamela. Are you sure you have zero talent? If you feel strongly enough, get writing again. Easy to say, I know, but if something fires you up, give in to it. I did. Let your imagination rip. So, back in the mists of time, I wrote about Richard. I was very green, but loved every minute of it. Then I went back to Warwick the Kingmaker, then further back to Edward II/Piers Gaveston. Then I did nothing medieval because I started writing Regency England instead. Loads of it. But now, thanks to Philippa and the Society, I'm back on track. I've actually turned down two unsolicited Regency contracts because I want to do this so much. I'm loving it all over again and having one helluva a time. Typing morning to night, listening to Jeff Lynne and ELO. Strangely, classical music does not work for me when I'm writing 15th century. It actually jars. Beethoven is having a break, I fear. Jeff Lynne is pure bliss.

The historical figure I have yet to write about, and really want to, is now in my sights. I mentioned him in a post today. Sir John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, Duke of Exeter, half-brother of Richard II. He fires me up, and I still have all the considerable research I did for his story. I feel those notes only just avoided being carved on tablets of stone, it was that long ago. He was really something else, and I can't wait to get my fiction-writing hooks into him. He was quite a rascal.

The dedication will depend upon what everyone has to say. Richard's name will, of course, feature in it! How could it not? He's the inspiration for us all.

Sandra


From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:27 PM
To:
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the Forum...


This is just my HUMBLE opinion, but I think it would be lovely to dedicate it to King Richard III, and all those who have been in his corner. Obviously, I am not a writer, and you can phrase this much better than I. Congratulations&.one of my dreams was to be a writer  that went down/up in flames when I realized I had zero talent. This group includes an amazing list of awesome authors, painters, and scholars.


From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:50 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

Hello Marie. No, it has nothing to do with Richard's marriage, but commences after Anne's death. He does not do anything wrong in that respect, but is very reluctant to give in to something he cannot deny. He's free and a widower when he acknowledges what he feels. She (not EoY) is left alone and devastated after Bosworth, having to face a future without the man she loves so very much. But she's not meek and mild, and confronts it all.

Hope I've helped?

Sandra


From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

Sounds a lovely idea, Sandra.
Just one reservation, though. When you say "the dreaded word 'incest' crops up", can you elucidate? Are you meaning that it crops up in relation to Richard's marriage to Anne?
Marie

Thank you, Liz. Much appreciated. I only hope the books aren't a disappointment!

Sandra


From: liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


Absolutely! And I can't wait to read the books.

Liz

Now that's an interesting idea. To compare what Richard would have read
about being an ideal prince to Machiavelli, and measure his actions using
that yardstick.

A J


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:06 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > And I think that's the key to it - we were coming into the age of
> Machiavelli's prince. Morton, MB in particular would have fitted
> beautifully into the court of the Borgias. Richard, no; he longed to be
> King Arthur.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree, Hilary. Unfortunately, the Machiavellian perspective has been
> applied to the wrong person for centuries.
>
> Even though "The Prince" hadn't been written yet, Mancini seems to have
> interpreted Richard's actions according to the Italian model, one reason,
> maybe, why later historians tend to see him through this lens.
>
> Shakespeare is a more obvious reason. He has Richard (as Gloucester in
> Henry VI, Part 3) anachronistically boasting that he would "set the
> murderous Machiavel to school." Rhetorical question: How much has "The
> Prince" (written ca. 1513, published 1532) influenced later views of
> Richard (via Shakespeare)? I suspect that historians have interpreted the
> historical Richard's words and actions in a Machiavellian light (despite
> the anachronism) rather than taking his legislation, letters, etc., at face
> value. Maybe they should realize that he followed a very different idea of
> what a "prince" ought to be (as indicated by his books as well as his words
> and actions).
>
> If Richard had been *more* Machiavellian, he might have survived: "A man
> who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among
> so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his
> rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not
> according to need."
>
> http://www.britaininprint.net/shakespeare/study_tools/machiavelli.html
>
> Does anyone know of a biographer who applies the Machiavellian standard
> (taken at face value, not as satire) to the Tudors, who certainly were more
> politically motivated than Richard was and were, like him, in the position
> of a "new prince" (king) rather than a hereditary one--in Richard's case
> because he was not the immediate heir and in the Tudors' case because their
> whole dynasty was based on an act of conquest?
>
> Also, does anyone know when "The Prince" was first published in English?
> Shakespeare had certainly read it by 1590 (first performance of the Henry
> VI plays), and he must have read it in English, not the original Italian.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

While I personally am drawn to the historical record, especially to
Richard's own words, and those that can be supposed to fairly represent his
point of view, it's also clear to me that how those primary records are
received depends on the point of view of the recipient. There are far too
many traditionalists (who seem to make up a disproportionate number of
those transmitting official history) who come to those records with
preconceived attitudes & twist Richard's most straightforward actions &
declarations into something devious & underhanded. So perhaps the way to
fight fictional history *is* with fiction, and we should welcome Richard's
continuing role as an inspiration to writers and other artists.

That said, if you feel that members of the Forum have helped you, an
acknowledgement seems entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, I suppose, a
dedication to Richard himself, might come across as way too sappy.



On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have
> admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a
> series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about
> 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts
> exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been
> completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains
> here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the
> second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I
> do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and
> unhelpful to the cause. I donýt agree, but I will certainly respect such
> views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about
> to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this
> particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all
> corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course,
> and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The
> consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are
> fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow
> facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be
> reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up,
> but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant
> way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if
> imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But Iým the
> author, and I would say itýs beautiful and moving, wouldnýt I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
> dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
> nunnery until itýs time to push up the daisies. So Iým posting this. If you
> all ignore me, Iýll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an
> overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go
> ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want
> is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open
> to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers
> know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private
> responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope youýll still let me pick your
> brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>

Hello Sandra,
Speaking as a new member I think some acknowledgement of the interest & stimulating debate you found in the posts & a tribute to the knowledge of the posters who offer well informed answers would be excellent.
I know I love reading the posts.
Jan.


On 1 May 2013, at 18:49, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

Hello A J.

You are not the only one to suggest a dedication to Richard himself. I wish
now that I had been able to do all this for the first book, which covers
1483-1485 and is very definitely, specifically Richard. It has a secondary
title on the cover - A Story of Richard III. But that book was completed at
the time I joined the Forum, and the dedication had been made. I could
change it, but would not do that to my friend, who is so pleased. So it's
the second book that is to be dealt with. It is after Bosworth, of course,
but he is still very much in the picture throughout the book, right to the
last scene. He still makes it to Book III, but less so. Although, in a way
he is as prominent as ever, but not directly. I'm not trying to sound
mysterious, I just don't want to give the plot away. Nothing worse than
knowing the end before the beginning. His name WILL be in this dedication
anyway, because of the Forum --- so far I have not had anyone throw real
bricks at me. I will try to compose a dedication that will give a huge nod
to Richard himself, as well as the Forum. Perhaps the way to do it will be
to refer in some way to Book I. Thinking cap on.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the
Forum...

That said, if you feel that members of the Forum have helped you, an
acknowledgement seems entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, I suppose, a
dedication to Richard himself, might come across as way too sappy.

Please let us know when your books are ready for purchase. Someday, I will write. Now, I have a business to run!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



Thank you, Pamela. Are you sure you have zero talent? If you feel strongly enough, get writing again. Easy to say, I know, but if something fires you up, give in to it. I did. Let your imagination rip. So, back in the mists of time, I wrote about Richard. I was very green, but loved every minute of it. Then I went back to Warwick the Kingmaker, then further back to Edward II/Piers Gaveston. Then I did nothing medieval because I started writing Regency England instead. Loads of it. But now, thanks to Philippa and the Society, I'm back on track. I've actually turned down two unsolicited Regency contracts because I want to do this so much. I'm loving it all over again and having one helluva a time. Typing morning to night, listening to Jeff Lynne and ELO. Strangely, classical music does not work for me when I'm writing 15th century. It actually jars. Beethoven is having a break, I fear. Jeff Lynne is pure bliss.

The historical figure I have yet to write about, and really want to, is now in my sights. I mentioned him in a post today. Sir John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, Duke of Exeter, half-brother of Richard II. He fires me up, and I still have all the considerable research I did for his story. I feel those notes only just avoided being carved on tablets of stone, it was that long ago. He was really something else, and I can't wait to get my fiction-writing hooks into him. He was quite a rascal.

The dedication will depend upon what everyone has to say. Richard's name will, of course, feature in it! How could it not? He's the inspiration for us all.

Sandra

From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:27 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the Forum...

This is just my HUMBLE opinion, but I think it would be lovely to dedicate it to King Richard III, and all those who have been in his corner. Obviously, I am not a writer, and you can phrase this much better than I. Congratulations&.one of my dreams was to be a writer  that went down/up in flames when I realized I had zero talent. This group includes an amazing list of awesome authors, painters, and scholars.

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:50 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

Thank you, Jane. I love all the posts. I get lost in some of them  Stillington for example  but I still read them, in the hope I'll get to the heart of it. However, I think perhaps Stillington & Co. will elude me.

Sandra

From: Jan Mulrenan
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

Hello Sandra,
Speaking as a new member I think some acknowledgement of the interest & stimulating debate you found in the posts & a tribute to the knowledge of the posters who offer well informed answers would be excellent.
I know I love reading the posts.
Jan.

I don't think Richard would have been happy trying to rule by power rather than by merit a la traditional Machiavelli. But there's a book out there called "Machiavelli for Women." There wasn't much in it that I could apply to my own life (I don't work in a corporate setting), but there was plenty in it that I kept thinking would have helped Richard run rings around the people he was up against.

I thought of the techniques offered as the feminine/instinctive, conniving mind up against the masculine/action mind more than women vs. men. It's very much a book about ruling by subtle power where everyone wins (or thinks he does), rather than the royal, "I'll destroy you if you don't do what I want."

I know that's vague, but it's hard to explain without going into detail about the book, and this isn't the forum to do that. But it sure opened my mind to the possibilities male medieval minds never considered.

~Weds


--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Now that's an interesting idea. To compare what Richard would have read
> about being an ideal prince to Machiavelli, and measure his actions using
> that yardstick.
>
> A J

I think it would be great to just acknowlege the help from tbe forum. Regards coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 18:49:49
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
Sandra

Thank you, Coral!

Sandra

From: coral nelson
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I think it would be great to just acknowlege the help from tbe forum. Regards coral

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the
Forum...


> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
> dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
> nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If
> you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an
> overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go
> ahead.

Fine by me. But if you've invented anything which could be seen as
disreputable behaviour by Richard (or anybody else for that matter), best to
include a note as to which bits are historically supported and which bits
you made up! We've all seen how easy it is to get fiction mixed up with the
factual books we've read - I thought Henry went to Eton, Ishita thought
Richard was dark etc etc just because we'd read it in novels and then forgot
where we'd seen it.

This is just my opinion, m'kay?

Speaking as another writer and editor, I think it would be appropriate if you acknowledged the help the Forum has given you in your research. That might take the form of a brief, general acknowledgment of the Forum's helping with your source material, as in, "Thanks to the Richard III Society Forum membership for letting me pick their brains...."

I don't think it would be appropriate for the novel itself to be dedicated to this Forum, as I'm not sure the Society or the Forum's members as an organization would want to be seen as sanctioning or endorsing an historical romance novel that includes Richard and one of his female relations in an incestuous relationship...or any novel for that matter.

You might want to approach the director of the Society and Neil (the owner of this Forum) for permission if what you want is to dedicate your novel to the Forum, rather than seek informal permission of its members.

That's my picked-brain's worth...for what it's worth.

~Wednesday



--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don’t agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I’m the author, and I would say it’s beautiful and moving, wouldn’t I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it’s time to push up the daisies. So I’m posting this. If you all ignore me, I’ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope you’ll still let me pick your brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>

Claire wrote:
Fine by me. But if you've invented anything which could be seen as
disreputable behaviour by Richard (or anybody else for that matter), best to
include a note as to which bits are historically supported and which bits
you made up! We've all seen how easy it is to get fiction mixed up with the
factual books we've read - I thought Henry went to Eton, Ishita thought
Richard was dark etc etc just because we'd read it in novels and then forgot
where we'd seen it.

Sandra answers:
No disreputable behaviour I promise. Just a widowed king falling in love with someone he should not. It's a love story, not anything sordid. They are truly, deeply in love, Far too much genuine emotion for it to be wrong. Her grief when he dies is so intense and affecting that it had me in tears as I wrote it.Treating Richard disrespectfully could not have been further from my mind.
I will try to add a note about what is real and what is not.

I'm all for people being converted to the truth by whatever means.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



Thank you, Coral!

Sandra

From: coral nelson
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I think it would be great to just acknowlege the help from tbe forum. Regards coral

>>> "Thanks to the Richard III Society Forum membership for letting me pick their brains...."<<<
Thank you Wednesday. The above is very much along the lines I was thinking. I mean, the book was not written for the Forum, it was written for me! But I came to realise how many wonderful titbits I was receiving from you all, and I could not in all honesty not make some reference to it. That would be very rude and selfish.

>>>You might want to approach the director of the Society and Neil (the owner of this Forum) for permission if what you want is to dedicate your novel to the Forum, rather than seek informal permission of its members.<<<
There did not seem to be much point in approaching the high-ups without finding out first if the grass roots were in favour. If the high-ups then choose not to permit anything, that is their prerogative, and I will not mention the Forum in the book itself. But at least by asking you all, you will know that I did try and I do admire the Forum.

Sandra

Thank you, Stephen!

Sandra

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I'm all for people being converted to the truth by whatever means.

Well, the problem of Book 1 versus Book 2 has been resolved. My friend is adamant that her dedication should go to Book 2. So I am now able to enter whatever mention of the Forum in Book 1, which is the one truly concerned with Richard, being 1483-1485. When I cease receiving replies to my original message (no one has yet been completely opposed to the idea), I will approach the high-ups. Can anyone tell me exactly who to contact? Email address too, if possible? If permission is refused, I will dedicate the book to Richard himself.

My thought at the moment is: "I wish to acknowledge the brilliant members of the Richard III Society Forum, who have allowed me to use their immense knowledge, even though they do not necessarily agree with certain aspects of my story."

Is this sort of thing OK? I won't send anything until I'm sure.

Sandra

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Thank you, Jane. I love all the posts. I get lost in some of them â€" Stillington for example â€" but I still read them, in the hope I’ll get to the heart of it. However, I think perhaps Stillington & Co. will elude me.

Carol responds:

At least, thanks to our fellow forum members' definitions of tartaryn, we know that Stillington dressed splendidly for Richard's coronation! I think that's our one concrete detail about the man.

Side note: Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had observers for other crucial events who wrote with the detail and objectivity of the person (presumably a herald) who described Richard and Anne's coronation?

Regarding the forum, you could say something about us in your acknowledgments rather than the dedication. That way, you could state there as you did in your original post on the topic that not all members will agree with your interpretation of events. Just a thought. Also, of course, most of us aren't experts or professional historians (Marie is an exception; there may be others), just enthusiastic amateurs with varying degrees of knowledge and different specific interests. You might want to indicate any more authoritative sources you've consulted in a bibliography. (I've seen novels citing Alison Weir as a source, a sure indication that the book is not worth reading--at least, not in my opinion.) Just a suggestion, of course.

Quick question: How are you handling the dialogue? Modern English, modified Shakespearean English, a compromise like SKP's "we be"? I don't mind "thee" and "thou" used correctly, but too many writers don't know that "thou" is nominative and "thee" is objective (or even that pronouns have cases).

Carol

"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
[snip]

> Speaking as another writer and editor, I think it would be appropriate if you acknowledged the help the Forum has given you in your research. That might take the form of a brief, general acknowledgment of the Forum's helping with your source material, as in, "Thanks to the Richard III Society Forum membership for letting me pick their brains...."
>
> I don't think it would be appropriate for the novel itself to be dedicated to this Forum, as I'm not sure the Society or the Forum's members as an organization would want to be seen as sanctioning or endorsing an historical romance novel that includes Richard and one of his female relations in an incestuous relationship...or any novel for that matter.
>
> You might want to approach the director of the Society and Neil (the owner of this Forum) for permission if what you want is to dedicate your novel to the Forum, rather than seek informal permission of its members. [snip]

Carol responds:

Yes, that's my view as well, as I tried to indicate (less clearly than Weds has done) in my last post. (I'm also a writer/editor though the editing has predominated for the last twenty years.) There's a difference, as you (Sandra) probably know between acknowledgements, which thank various people for their help or contributions of whatever variety, and a dedication, which is usually a tribute to a friend or loved one. (Notice how many books are dedicated to husbands, wives, or children of the writer or to the memory of a lost loved one.)

carol



Carol

> Sandra wrote:

> No disreputable behaviour I promise. Just a widowed king falling in love with someone he should not. It’s a love story, not anything sordid. They are truly, deeply in love, Far too much genuine emotion for it to be wrong. Her grief when he dies is so intense and affecting that it had me in tears as I wrote it.Treating Richard disrespectfully could not have been further from my mind.
> I will try to add a note about what is real and what is not.

Carol responds:

Check out Sharon Kay Penman's books, which always contain an author's note. They might serve as models. Again, just a suggestion.

Carol

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>[snip] When I cease receiving replies to my original message (no one has yet been completely opposed to the idea), I will approach the high-ups. Can anyone tell me exactly who to contact? Email address too, if possible? If permission is refused, I will dedicate the book to Richard himself. [snip]

Carol responds:

I hope you've already read Wednesday's and my posts distinguishing between acknowledgements and dedications, which may solve your dilemma regarding who is and who isn't a proper dedicatee. i forgot to include this link, which is intended for thesis or dissertation writers but is equally applicable to any book:

http://www.ma-dissertations.com/blog/thesis-tips/thesis-acknowledgement/dedication-thesis

But, that aside, you can reach Neil, the moderator of this forum (if he isn't already reading this thread) by posting from the forum rather than from your e-mail, clicking on the pull-down menu beside "To:", and choosing -owner (@ yahoogroups.com), which will go to Neil, instead of the usual (@ yahoogroups.com), which will go to the whole group.

Hope that makes sense.

Carol

Carol. Long reply, I fear.
I have used modern English, but without won't, don't, he'd, she'd and so on. I've written them in full, which I think actually does formalise it just enough, without slowing the pace. I don't like stilted conversation, I need to keep the rhythm going because I type at the speed of the conversation as it runs through my head. Unfortunately, if I write nay' I am reminded of a horse. I'd fall about at the thought of a horse with a crown or headdress.
I am not sure about listing all the sources  some I cannot pin down anyway, since they have come from my ancient hand-written notes from the 70s, when I was not particularly clever about such things. I've taken a fact from here, a name from there, a date from somewhere else. Occasionally I have used a modern work to locate original sources, using the convenience of the index. But that is all. I have not used any other writer's actual work, e.g. assessment of character  I draw my own conclusions from known facts and actions. I have, however, used some things from the Forum, which is why I am anxious to acknowledge it. What has come from original sources I have endeavoured to reword in modern English, and mostly did this some time ago. Except, of course, for information that has come to light since then. But again I endeavoured to use the original source of the new information. If I really cannot find several sources for a particular point, I don't use it. For instance, if I found a reference to Richard having porridge for breakfast on the morning of Bosworth, I'd need to find it elsewhere as well before I'd include it in the story. And the description of Edward IV's family as being fair, as in golden, it simply does not ring true when I look at the portraits.They were a good-looking lot with hair that ranged from light to very dark chestnut. Not blonde. I need to be sure of what I feel is right.
Record-keeping is not my greatest skill. It's amazing I still have my old research. Well, not all of it, a couple of vital notebooks have gone awol. I certainly intend to acknowledge all the info that has come from the discovery in Leicester, because that is obviously not included in my early research. But please, no one ask me where I got this point or that, because my brain won't have a clue. It's one of those that gather lot of information, uses it, and then discards it because it moves on. Retaining facts is a bit iffy for me, hence some of the basic questions I've post at this Forum! It's how I prepared for exams. Last minute swotting, everything in the grey cells, do the exam, everything jettisoned from the grey cells.
Plus, of course, a huge list of sources suggests to readers that the book is Gospel, which obviously it is not. There comes a point when too many acknowledgements and explanations get in the way of what is, after all, a work of fiction. So what it boils down to is that I am still not sure what to do about this. The only thing I'm certain of is that events at Leicester should be properly acknowledged. And I may have to seek the Forum's advice on exactly which names must be entered, and in what order. No toe-treading or glaring omissions, if I can help it.
I have already posted my first suggestion for the wording of the proposed acknowledgement of the Forum's excellence. "I wish to acknowledge the brilliant members of the Richard III Society Forum, who have allowed me to use their immense knowledge, even though they do not necessarily agree with certain aspects of my story." This is just a first effort, and can be adjusted or changed entirely.

Sandra

Pamela, I agree with you there even at the risk of being maudlin....

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary, I think Richard wasn't as shrewd a politician as the others you mentioned. He understood law and military leadership but when it came to the treacherous underbelly of politics he lacked effective way to deal with it. Over and over gain we see him trusting or forgiving people who shouldn't have been forgiven. I feel he showed a lack of judgement in these occasions.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until the next generation.
>
> I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years, those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell, even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick, Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475 this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings, Buckingham) betrayed him.
>
> Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
>
> Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward, Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
>
> Sorry to go on so much.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.
>
> But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
> Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
> hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and if
> not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
> given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
> physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this was
> the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
> more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
> the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.
>
> Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
> the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
> good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> knack of managing them is an interesting question.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> > interesting speculation.
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > had still been alive?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > ...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > >
> > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> > Live today and fight another day.......
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:
> > cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > >
> > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right
> > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > taken upon
> > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> > of interest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you, Carol. Yes, I do know the difference between dedications and acknowledgements, I've done both in the past. I simply got muddled today, not about which was which, but about which word I was using. Subtle difference. That's all it was, but I seem to have caused confusion. Not intended.

I have experienced problems in the past with acknowledgements and dedications. Penguin US have squeezed things on to one page in order to save money. Title, ISBN details, dedications, acknowledgements and even an Author Note, all jammed on the fly leaf. Terrible. Some time ago now, granted, but it's not something you forget. The things of which publishers are capable never cease to amaze me. Such as my Regency hero who (in Sweden) sported a lumberjack's red and white check shirt. And the pinnacle  Christina Dodd's three-armed heroine. http://christinadodd.com/christina-dodd-and-the-infamous-three-armed-cover/
I've just realised what time it is. So off to bed.
Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the
Forum...


> The things of which publishers are capable never cease to amaze me. Such
> as my Regency hero who (in Sweden) sported a lumberjack's red and white
> check shirt. And the pinnacle  Christina Dodd's three-armed heroine.

Works of science fiction almost invariably have a multi-coloured spaceship
on the cover - irrespective of whether there are any spaceships in the
story.

Lovely to have a fellow Maudlin. That sounds like an Oxford College.......

On May 1, 2013, at 7:14 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Pamela, I agree with you there even at the risk of being maudlin....

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is interesting speculation.
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son had still been alive?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > >
> > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!! Live today and fight another day.......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> >
> > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ýýýýý" win the battle!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@<mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By the king ýýýýýýýýýýýýýý"RRýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý \ Right Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had taken upon
> > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined, especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to accept explanation 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

That is so sweet of you Sandra!!
And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e ready reader in me:)!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

Same here. It was two works of fiction that made me a Ricardian.

The first was Shakespeare's play, which is so uncharacteristically over-the-top silly for one of his "history plays" (I mean, seriously -- compare it to Cleopatra and you almost wonder if the same guy wrote both works) that it actually worked to undercut the very storyline the Tudors wanted told; nowadays I keep thinking of how Alan Rickman did a similarly over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Dweebs and almost, almost, injected enough comedy into it to make it watchable.

The second, which I encountered some years later, was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a book that has inspired a number of people, including at least one journalist I know (who lives by the maxim "Truth isn't found in accounts but in account-books").

Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


That is so sweet of you Sandra!!
And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read
everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous
of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e
ready reader in me:)!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have
admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of
fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will
definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the
world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I
have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like
to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to
a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction
as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don't agree, but I will certainly
respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am
about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this
particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners
of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he
features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his
reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written
primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also
invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am
not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and
certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be
a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical
figures. But I'm the author, and I would say it's beautiful and moving, wouldn't
I?
> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
nunnery until it's time to push up the daisies. So I'm posting this. If you all
ignore me, I'll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall
acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No
specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset
anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!)
suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a
splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> Even if you turn me down, I do hope you'll still let me pick your
brains?????????
> Sandra
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

LOL "Prince of Dweebs" Rickman was the best part of that movie, not only funny but hot!
Nicole

~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy

To:
From: khafara@...
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 22:53:15 -0400
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


























Same here. It was two works of fiction that made me a Ricardian.



The first was Shakespeare's play, which is so uncharacteristically over-the-top silly for one of his "history plays" (I mean, seriously -- compare it to Cleopatra and you almost wonder if the same guy wrote both works) that it actually worked to undercut the very storyline the Tudors wanted told; nowadays I keep thinking of how Alan Rickman did a similarly over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Dweebs and almost, almost, injected enough comedy into it to make it watchable.



The second, which I encountered some years later, was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a book that has inspired a number of people, including at least one journalist I know (who lives by the maxim "Truth isn't found in accounts but in account-books").



Tamara



-----Original Message-----

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>

To: <>

Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 7:34 pm

Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



That is so sweet of you Sandra!!

And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read

everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous

of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e

ready reader in me:)!



Ishita Bandyo

Sent from my iPad



On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:



> I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have

admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of

fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will

definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the

world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I

have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like

to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to

a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction

as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I donýt agree, but I will certainly

respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am

about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this

particular acknowledgement is to be included.

> The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners

of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he

features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his

reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written

primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also

invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am

not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and

certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be

a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical

figures. But Iým the author, and I would say itýs beautiful and moving, wouldnýt

I?

> I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is

dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a

nunnery until itýs time to push up the daisies. So Iým posting this. If you all

ignore me, Iýll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall

acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No

specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset

anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!)

suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a

splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.

> Even if you turn me down, I do hope youýll still let me pick your

brains?????????

> Sandra

>

>

>

>







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



Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello Claire.

Agreed about the spaceships.

This is my last long post, I promise. Having spent far too much time awake yesterday, virtually small hours to small hours, I finally got myself into a tangle over that dedication/acknowledgement business. I'm alert again now  well, I have my first cup of tea to hand, which more or less amounts to the same thing. My wish is to put the acknowledgement, of the Forum/those responsible for the discovery and huge advance at Leicester, in the same prominent position that a dedication would have at the beginning of the book . But definitely as an acknowledgement. That is all. I will certainly make it clear that aspects of my story do not have the Forum's/Society's approval. If I get the official go-ahead re the Forum, I will also approach the discoverers. Of course. I have to get THAT right as well  the Society should be shown due appreciation. They may have to tell me what they want, because sure as eggs is eggs, I'll mess up somehow if left to my own devices. Of course, they may not approve anyway. It's all so tentative at the moment, but I really did feel compelled to post yesterday's approach. The Forum members had to be asked first. If I do not get official approval, I will be sure to let the Forum know.

It is this one particular prominent beginning-of-the-book slot that prompted me to ask my friend if I could move her to Book 2 (which has become her favourite anyway). I didn't want to move her because I intended to dedicate' Book 1 (or 2) to the Forum instead. I knew what I meant, but bungled conveying it. I expressed it badly and used the wrong word anyway. Not good for an author! My husband is always complaining that I do that. I do not want clutter to bury' my endeavours to show due respect to the Forum. Nor did I want it at the back of the book if I could help it. The back of a book always seems like a grudging afterthought. Sometimes, even at the beginning of the book, I have had dedications shifted/squashed into such insignificant, cramped places that they are hard to find. I have also had them disappear entirely by the time the book is finally on the shelves, even though they were there when I last had my hands on the proofs/galleys/final e-file/whatever they're called. I can't do much about that. Publishing sleight of hand is always a hazard, and I've experienced enough of it over the years to know whereof I speak. Anyway, I am determined to get all this right, and see that the publisher does as well. But the Forum members had to be asked first. And the discoverers.

I once had an editor request changes to a ms, to which I duly attended. They were tedious alternations that I didn't think made much difference. In the end, even though I did everything asked of me, some twit at the publisher binned the wrong version and the original came out anyway. Sloppy. Penguin USA again.

I hope my explanation above allays concerns about what I actually mean/intend with this acknowledgement? If I've still been unclear, no doubt I will hear!
BTW, may I thank everyone who has responded to me? I've been answering individually, but don't want to clutter the Forum any more. I know it's not approved of. So one general, heartfelt thank you to everyone who has commented.
Sandra

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

Works of science fiction almost invariably have a multi-coloured spaceship
on the cover - irrespective of whether there are any spaceships in the
story.

Hello All, I agree with Wednesday on this one.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> This is just my opinion, m'kay?
>
> Speaking as another writer and editor, I think it would be appropriate if you acknowledged the help the Forum has given you in your research. That might take the form of a brief, general acknowledgment of the Forum's helping with your source material, as in, "Thanks to the Richard III Society Forum membership for letting me pick their brains...."
>
> I don't think it would be appropriate for the novel itself to be dedicated to this Forum, as I'm not sure the Society or the Forum's members as an organization would want to be seen as sanctioning or endorsing an historical romance novel that includes Richard and one of his female relations in an incestuous relationship...or any novel for that matter.
>
> You might want to approach the director of the Society and Neil (the owner of this Forum) for permission if what you want is to dedicate your novel to the Forum, rather than seek informal permission of its members.
>
> That's my picked-brain's worth...for what it's worth.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don’t agree, but I will certainly respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> > The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical figures. But I’m the author, and I would say it’s beautiful and moving, wouldn’t I?
> > I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a nunnery until it’s time to push up the daisies. So I’m posting this. If you all ignore me, I’ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!) suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> > Even if you turn me down, I do hope you’ll still let me pick your brains?????????
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
>

SandraMachin wrote:

//snip//
"My thought at the moment is: "I wish to acknowledge the brilliant members
of the Richard III Society Forum, who have allowed me to use their immense
knowledge, even though they do not necessarily agree with certain aspects of
my story.""

Except for changing "...they do not..." to "...they may not...", I think you
just might have your dedication. You never know, once we've read it...
Best of luck with the sales!
Doug

Ishita Bandyo wrote:

"Hilary, I think Richard wasn't as shrewd a politician as the others you
mentioned. He understood law and military leadership but when it came to the
treacherous underbelly of politics he lacked effective way to deal with it.
Over and over gain we see him trusting or forgiving people who shouldn't
have been forgiven. I feel he showed a lack of judgement in these
occasions."

Doug here:
I get the impression that it may been more a lack of imagination on
Richard's part; ie, Richard felt he knew what *he* should do; ie, what was
required of him, whether as Duke, King, or just as what he understood a
Christian should be, to try and meet the standards of justice and honor
that, supposedly, his society was based on and failed, or was unable, to
imagine that not everybody else did the same?
I hope that makes sense? I know *what* I'm trying to say, but whether I've
said it...
Doug

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to
> Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until
> the next generation.
>
> I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people
> shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him
> lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years,
> those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell,
> even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick,
> Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475
> this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the
> supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings,
> Buckingham) betrayed him.
>
> Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them
> for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were
> he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
>
> Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were
> venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward,
> Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
>
> Sorry to go on so much.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.
>
> But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
> Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
> hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and
> if
> not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
> given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
> physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this
> was
> the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
> more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
> the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.
>
> Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
> the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
> good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> knack of managing them is an interesting question.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had
> > seen
> > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape,
> > lost
> > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it
> > is
> > interesting speculation.
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > had still been alive?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > ...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To
> > > > lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast
> > as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > >
> > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother
> > > Eddie!!
> > Live today and fight another day.......
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:
> > cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To
> > > > lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast
> > as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering
> > the
> > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who
> > fought
> > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC,
> > no
> > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to
> > > > > Russell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that
> > Richard
> > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > >
> > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How
> > do
> > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right
> > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > taken upon
> > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary.
> > > > > > Who
> > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly
> > against
> > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to
> > spread
> > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books,
> > to
> > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never
> > > > > > go
> > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial
> > or
> > of interest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

> SandraMachin wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "My thought at the moment is: "I wish to acknowledge the brilliant members of the Richard III Society Forum, who have allowed me to use their immense knowledge, even though they do not necessarily agree with certain aspects of my story.""

Doug responded:

> Except for changing "...they do not..." to "...they may not...", I think you just might have your dedication. You never know, once we've read it...

Carol responds:

"Brilliant" and "immense" might be overstating the case, especially bearing in mind that people who are not partisans of Richard will read that acknowledgement. I agree with the suggestion to change "do" to "may," and perhaps "thank" might be better than "acknowledge" (though it would be an acknowledgment rather than a dedication).

As always, just suggestions.

BTW, Sandra, thanks for answering my question about dialogue in another post. I agree that avoiding contractions (and, presumably, slang and other modernisms) is a good way to provide a touch of formality without "speaking forsoothly," as Josephine Tey puts it. I rather like "nay" myself, but oh, well. And, of course, other little touches like "my lord" and "your grace" will also help to establish the atmosphere. (I have a special fondness for "my lady mother"; don't know how anyone else feels about it, but I can see Cecily's children referring to her in that way.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the
Forum...


> BTW, Sandra, thanks for answering my question about dialogue in another
> post. I agree that avoiding contractions (and, presumably, slang and other
> modernisms) is a good way to provide a touch of formality without
> "speaking forsoothly,"

Eee-yess, but then avoiding contractions risks making the speaker sound
American rather than British. That's possibly appropriate because a lot of
Americanisms are archaic rather than neologisms, but if you squint at them
Richard's letters are probably quite informal and chatty so a formal tone
may give the wrong impression. "Here, loved by God, is all well and truly
purveyed for", for example, is pretty clearly "Here, thank God, we are
well-and-truly ready" which is pretty casual.

Ishita...I agree with you...I do believe he was in a difficult position with Stanley and Mrs Stanley, but Morton!....He should have been locked in a very secure place for a very, very long time...I wonder if Anne ever had a go at him over some of these decisions...eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Over and over gain we see him trusting or forgiving people who shouldn't have been forgiven. I feel he showed a lack of judgement in these occasions.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until the next generation.
> >
> > I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years, those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell, even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick, Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475 this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings, Buckingham) betrayed him.
> >
> > Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
> >
> > Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward, Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
> >
> > Sorry to go on so much.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.
> >
> > But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
> > Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
> > hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and if
> > not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
> > given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
> > physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this was
> > the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
> > more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
> > the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.
> >
> > Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
> > the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
> > good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> > he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> > knack of managing them is an interesting question.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> > > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> > > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> > > interesting speculation.
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > > had still been alive?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > > ...<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > > >
> > > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> > > Live today and fight another day.......
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:
> > > cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> > > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> > > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> > > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS â€" win the battle!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> > > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> > > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "By the king ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ËÅ"RRÃÆ'¢â‚¬â„¢ \ Right
> > > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > > taken upon
> > > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> > > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> > > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> > > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> > > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> > > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> > > of interest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I think we're all saying the same but in different ways. Richard was an hones innocent in a new more corrupt world.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

 


Ishita Bandyo wrote:

"Hilary, I think Richard wasn't as shrewd a politician as the others you
mentioned. He understood law and military leadership but when it came to the
treacherous underbelly of politics he lacked effective way to deal with it.
Over and over gain we see him trusting or forgiving people who shouldn't
have been forgiven. I feel he showed a lack of judgement in these
occasions."

Doug here:
I get the impression that it may been more a lack of imagination on
Richard's part; ie, Richard felt he knew what *he* should do; ie, what was
required of him, whether as Duke, King, or just as what he understood a
Christian should be, to try and meet the standards of justice and honor
that, supposedly, his society was based on and failed, or was unable, to
imagine that not everybody else did the same?
I hope that makes sense? I know *what* I'm trying to say, but whether I've
said it...
Doug

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to
> Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until
> the next generation.
>
> I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people
> shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him
> lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years,
> those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell,
> even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick,
> Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475
> this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the
> supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings,
> Buckingham) betrayed him.
>
> Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them
> for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were
> he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
>
> Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were
> venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward,
> Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
>
> Sorry to go on so much.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
>
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.
>
> But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
> Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
> hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and
> if
> not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
> given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
> physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this
> was
> the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
> more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
> the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.
>
> Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
> the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
> good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> knack of managing them is an interesting question.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had
> > seen
> > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape,
> > lost
> > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it
> > is
> > interesting speculation.
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > had still been alive?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > ...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To
> > > > lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast
> > as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > >
> > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother
> > > Eddie!!
> > Live today and fight another day.......
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:
> > cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To
> > > > lose
> > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast
> > as
> > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering
> > the
> > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who
> > fought
> > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC,
> > no
> > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS ââ¬" win the battle!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to
> > > > > Russell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that
> > Richard
> > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > >
> > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How
> > do
> > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "By the king Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã9Å"RRÒ¢ââ¬a‰â¬~¢ \ Right
> > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > taken upon
> > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary.
> > > > > > Who
> > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly
> > against
> > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to
> > spread
> > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books,
> > to
> > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never
> > > > > > go
> > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial
> > or
> > of interest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I loved Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham,,,,in fact if I had been Marion I would rather have married him than Costner's Robin any day...sometimes the naughty guys seem so much more attractive....not in Richard's case though...Richard was quite clearly the good guy....and as for the bad guy on that occasion....well...say no more..Eileen

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> Same here. It was two works of fiction that made me a Ricardian.
>
> The first was Shakespeare's play, which is so uncharacteristically over-the-top silly for one of his "history plays" (I mean, seriously -- compare it to Cleopatra and you almost wonder if the same guy wrote both works) that it actually worked to undercut the very storyline the Tudors wanted told; nowadays I keep thinking of how Alan Rickman did a similarly over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Dweebs and almost, almost, injected enough comedy into it to make it watchable.
>
> The second, which I encountered some years later, was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a book that has inspired a number of people, including at least one journalist I know (who lives by the maxim "Truth isn't found in accounts but in account-books").
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 7:34 pm
> Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
>
> That is so sweet of you Sandra!!
> And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read
> everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous
> of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e
> ready reader in me:)!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have
> admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of
> fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will
> definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the
> world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I
> have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like
> to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to
> a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction
> as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I don’t agree, but I will certainly
> respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am
> about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this
> particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> > The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners
> of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he
> features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his
> reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written
> primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also
> invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am
> not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and
> certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be
> a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical
> figures. But I’m the author, and I would say it’s beautiful and moving, wouldn’t
> I?
> > I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
> dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
> nunnery until it’s time to push up the daisies. So I’m posting this. If you all
> ignore me, I’ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall
> acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No
> specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset
> anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!)
> suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a
> splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> > Even if you turn me down, I do hope you’ll still let me pick your
> brains?????????
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sandra I endorse this, no problems at all.  For a moment I thought it was going to be Wolf Hall on Stillington - only joking !!!:) 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2013, 22:13
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


 

I'm all for people being converted to the truth by whatever means.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

Thank you, Coral!

Sandra

From: coral nelson
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

I think it would be great to just acknowlege the help from tbe forum. Regards coral

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the
Forum...


> "Here, loved by God,

Sorry, slight slippage of the brain there - should of course be "loved be
God".

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> I think we're all saying the same but in different ways. Richard was an
> honest innocent in a new more corrupt world.

I often wonder if Richard had a touch of Asperger's Syndrome - like my late
lovely friend John, who resembled him in so many way. It's the combination
of high intelligence, honesty, innocence verging on gullibility, openness,
nit-pickingly obsessive analysis of the law, kindness and thoughtfulness
interspersed with occasional explosions of temper and I'd be prepared to bet
that More's description of him as an inveterate twiddler of small objects is
true, and that's a typical "Aspie thing".

[I know it's not popular to think that anything in More is true but, well,
More was eight when Richard died. I was seven when Churchill died and if I
wrote a fake documentary which claimed that I'd found evidence that
Churchill was secretly a monster who murdered his opponents, complete with
fake dialogue, I bet I could get plenty of people to believe me - but if I
described him as a thin man who was famously polite and abstemious, *nobody*
would believe it. Similarly with More, he was writing for an audience many
of whom will have seen Richard and maybe even met him, so his description of
Richard has to have at least superficially resembled him, otherwise no-one
would have believed him - unless his purpose was total satire and he had no
intention of being believed.

Also, if you were going to invent something from whole cloth to blacken
someone's memory you would surely come up with something better than "He was
an inveterate twiddler of small objects." It sounds more like a real
behaviour to which More is imparting a sinister spin - just as somebody
might try to work Churchill's rudeness up into "evidence" that he was a
tyrranical thug.]

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Similarly with More, he was writing for an audience many
> of whom will have seen Richard and maybe even met him, so his description of Richard has to have at least superficially resembled him, otherwise no-one would have believed him - unless his purpose was total satire and he had no intention of being believed. [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't think that More was writing for a large audience, particularly not for people (such as Thomas Howard) who had seen or known Richard. Such people would immediately have been put off by his giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision some thirteen years, seven months, and I forget how many days off from the actual age at death. (No one who had known Edward would have thought that he died at fifty-three.) I think, based on the tone of the book and the fact that More never published (or even finished) the various versions that it was written for his amusement and that of his intellectual friends, in particular Polydore Vergil, whose history he partly echoes, partly exaggerates, and implicitly ridicules for its reliance on rumor.

I realize that this theory is just that, a theory, but it stands up to examination better than either of the other possibilities: that More was writing a straightforward history (based in part on the biased testimony of Bishop Morton) or that he was writing a straightforward moral tract (which somehow includes the almost obscene dark comic element of Richard plotting the murder of children as he sits on the chamber pot). In other places, More's portrait is less satirical but equally imaginative, as in his version (quoted later in this post) of Richard's supposed playing with a dagger.

At any rate, no contemporary chronicler, even the inconsistent Rous or the consistently hostile Croyland chronicler, mentions any such mannerism, and, in any case, the source is not More but Vergil, whom he is echoing. Vergil has him "woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest, and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were," a demonstration (along with the supposed biting of his lower lip) of the "crewell nature [that] did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase." The description of these actions occurs in the same paragraph as the details from Rous (short stature, deformed body, short face [probably Vergil's own mistranslation]) and Vergil's own addition: a "sowre countenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt," a description that we know to be false.

In More, the tugging at the dagger becomes the basis for an imaginative scene (used all too memorably by Shakespeare): "Where he went abrode, his eyen whirled about, his body priuily fenced, his hand euer on his dager, his countenance and maner like one alway ready to strike againe, he toke ill rest a nightes, lay long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care & watch, rather slumbred then slept, troubled wyth feareful dreames, sodainly sommetyme sterte vp, leape out of his bed & runne about the chamber, so was his restles herte continually tossed & tumbled with the tedious impression & stormy remembrance of his abominable dede."

I think we can dismiss the first description as an attempt at a primitive characterization by someone who never saw Richard and the second as a vivid, imaginative extension of this detail (and an unconfirmed rumor that Richard suffered from insomnia) into a vivid and wholly imaginary psychological portrait of a guilt-stricken murderer. Vergil, faced with limited resources and the necessity to write from a Tudor perspective, is embroidering on his sources. More is taking the ball and running with it, claiming that his information comes from "credible report of such as wer secrete with his chamberers"--a highly unlikely claim since these same "chamberers" date this disquiet to after the performance of the "abhominable deede" (the supposed murder of the "Princes"). Vergil has made it a nervous habit illustrating Richard's supposed cruelty; for More, it's an indication of his insecurity and fear of assassination (which, BTW, sounds more like Henry than Richard).

I would give More's secret informers, from these chamberers who confided in unnamed informants who in turn confided in More to the "secret page" in the chamber pot scene, as much credence as I give to Lord Stanley's permonitory dream before Hastings's execution (in which "a bore with his tuskes so raced them both bi the heddes, that the blood ranne aboute both their shoulders")--exactly none.

We really, really need to sort contemporary report (however potentially biased or unreliable since that can be assessed for itself) from later invention, starting by disregarding anything in More and Vergil that is not confirmed by earlier sources. Just my own opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.

Carol

Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my favorite movies!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



I loved Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham,,,,in fact if I had been Marion I would rather have married him than Costner's Robin any day...sometimes the naughty guys seem so much more attractive....not in Richard's case though...Richard was quite clearly the good guy....and as for the bad guy on that occasion....well...say no more..Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, khafara@... wrote:
>
> Same here. It was two works of fiction that made me a Ricardian.
>
> The first was Shakespeare's play, which is so uncharacteristically over-the-top silly for one of his "history plays" (I mean, seriously -- compare it to Cleopatra and you almost wonder if the same guy wrote both works) that it actually worked to undercut the very storyline the Tudors wanted told; nowadays I keep thinking of how Alan Rickman did a similarly over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Dweebs and almost, almost, injected enough comedy into it to make it watchable.
>
> The second, which I encountered some years later, was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a book that has inspired a number of people, including at least one journalist I know (who lives by the maxim "Truth isn't found in accounts but in account-books").
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>>
> To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 7:34 pm
> Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
>
> That is so sweet of you Sandra!!
> And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read
> everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous
> of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e
> ready reader in me:)!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:
>
> > I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have
> admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of
> fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will
> definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the
> world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I
> have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like
> to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to
> a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction
> as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I donâ¬"t agree, but I will certainly
> respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am
> about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this
> particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> > The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners
> of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he
> features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his
> reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written
> primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also
> invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am
> not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and
> certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be
> a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical
> figures. But Iâ¬"m the author, and I would say itâ¬"s beautiful and moving, wouldnâ¬"t
> I?
> > I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
> dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
> nunnery until itâ¬"s time to push up the daisies. So Iâ¬"m posting this. If you all
> ignore me, Iâ¬"ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall
> acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No
> specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset
> anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!)
> suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a
> splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> > Even if you turn me down, I do hope youâ¬"ll still let me pick your
> brains?????????
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> (No one who had known Edward would have thought that he died at
> fifty-three.)

True. Could More be mixing Edward up with someone else? Was anybody
significant born on the day that he claims Edward was born, that he might
have got mixed up with Edward in his notes?

> or that he was writing a straightforward moral tract (which somehow
> includes the almost obscene dark comic element of Richard plotting the
> murder of children as he sits on the chamber pot).

I think that moral tracts often include dodgy elements, though - think of
all those Lives of Saints - and More was a peculiar and rather unpleasant
man.

> At any rate, no contemporary chronicler, even the inconsistent Rous or the
> consistently hostile Croyland chronicler, mentions any such mannerism,

Yes, but you wouldn't expect them to, because they would recognise it as
being of no importance. Just as you wouldn't expect anybody to record "He
always scratched his eyebrow with his pen when he was thinking" or whatever.

> Vergil has him "woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the
> sheath to the myddest, and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway
> were," a demonstration (along with the supposed biting of his lower lip)
> of the "crewell nature [that] did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle
> carkase."

Yes, but again, if he were *inventing* something to demonstrate Richard's
supposed cruel nature he could surely have come up with something better
than that. Think of the description of Edward of Lancaster's supposed
enthusiasm for bloodshed, for example. You would expect "He talked
constantly of murder and bloodshed; he loved to watch executions" etc - not
"He bit his lip and jiggled his dagger a lot." That sounds like a tabloid
journalist scrabbling for something they can put a negative spin on - and
having to scrape the bottom of the barrel because really, there isn't
anything.

> The description of these actions occurs in the same paragraph as the
> details from Rous (short stature, deformed body, short face [probably
> Vergil's own mistranslation]) and Vergil's own addition: a "sowre
> countenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft
> and deceyt," a description that we know to be false.

Actually we don't. We know what shape his face was - we don't know what his
expression was like. The reconstruction team have given him an amiable and
pleasant if slightly smug expression, but we don't know if he looked like
that in life. All we can say is all we could say before, that the NPG
portrait looks mild and slightly pained and that an old lady who may or may
not have been a Dowager Countess of Desmond and may or may not have danced
with Richard when he was thirtyish and she was about nine recalled him as
being very handsome.

Given what a total innocent he seems to have been it seems most unlikely
that he would have looked crafty, and even less likely that he would have
*been* crafty - but we don't actually know. He may well have looked sour -
he was probably a martyr to toothache and that doesn't do much for anybody's
expression.

> In More, the tugging at the dagger becomes the basis for an imaginative
> scene (used all too memorably by Shakespeare): "Where he went abrode, his
> eyen whirled about, his body priuily fenced, his hand euer on his dager,
> his countenance and maner like one alway ready to strike againe, he toke
> ill rest a nightes, lay long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care &
> watch, rather slumbred then slept, troubled wyth feareful dreames,
> sodainly sommetyme sterte vp, leape out of his bed & runne about the
> chamber,

Which is one of the reasons I think More is working from actual gossip: this
is just what you'd expect of someone with back trouble. My friend with
scoliosis has great trouble sleeping in a bed: he has to lay a bolster
against the wall and lie propped against it when his back is playing up, and
when it's really bad he sleeps curled up in an armchair, because his back
just doesn't flatten out well. Take out all the journalistic colour about
guilty consciences and nightmares, which More couldn't possibly know and
which is therefore guesswork, and what you're left with sounds like a very
good description of someone who was stressed out by constant niggling pain
which sometimes flared up into agonising cramp during the night.

> a highly unlikely claim since these same "chamberers" date this disquiet
> to after the performance of the "abhominable deede" (the supposed murder
> of the "Princes").

Which is also what you'd expect. He was getting older, and as king he
wasn't riding as much or wearing armour as much as when he was Duke, and so
it's quite likely that once that great progress to the north and back was
over and he started on what amounted to a desk job - which happened to
coincide with his nephews' disappearance from London - his back would get
worse.

Btw Wednesday, who is an experienced calligrapher, has suggested that the
reason Richard seems to have two different handwritings and signatures is
possibly not (as I had suggested) because he sometimes authorised Kendall to
sign for him, but because when his back was playing up he sometimes signed
documents while standing up and therefore holding pen to paper at arm's
length.

> We really, really need to sort contemporary report (however potentially
> biased or unreliable since that can be assessed for itself) from later
> invention, starting by disregarding anything in More and Vergil that is
> not confirmed by earlier sources. Just my own opinion, but I feel very
> strongly about it.

Fair enough, but I feel strongly that reports from people writing only a
few years after Richard's death are very likely to contain a lot of truth -
even if we don't know *which bits* are true - and that, given that we didn't
even know Richard had back trouble until this year, and yet More has
provided a good description of what you would expect from someone with
severe back pain, the description of Richard as tense and jumpy and liable
to jump out of bed in the middle of the night is one of the things which is
probably true.

You and me both.  I once saw him play Hamlet at the Riverside Studios - I have NO idea who else was in it.  It was in the round and we were

 about 3 feet away from him.
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 20:53
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the Forum...

 
Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my favorite movies!


From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:00 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...



I loved Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham,,,,in fact if I had been Marion I would rather have married him than Costner's Robin any day...sometimes the naughty guys seem so much more attractive....not in Richard's case though...Richard was quite clearly the good guy....and as for the bad guy on that occasion....well...say no more..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, khafara@... wrote:
>
> Same here. It was two works of fiction that made me a Ricardian.
>
> The first was Shakespeare's play, which is so uncharacteristically over-the-top silly for one of his "history plays" (I mean, seriously -- compare it to Cleopatra and you almost wonder if the same guy wrote both works) that it actually worked to undercut the very storyline the Tudors wanted told; nowadays I keep thinking of how Alan Rickman did a similarly over-the-top turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Dweebs and almost, almost, injected enough comedy into it to make it watchable.
>
> The second, which I encountered some years later, was Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, a book that has inspired a number of people, including at least one journalist I know (who lives by the maxim "Truth isn't found in accounts but in account-books").
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 7:34 pm
> Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
>
> That is so sweet of you Sandra!!
> And I am not one of those who loath fiction. I love Ricardian fiction. Read
> everyone of them. Without Sunne I wouldn't even be here!! I am so very jealous
> of writers who can build a whole world with their words! You have at least o e
> ready reader in me:)!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:
>
> > I have to ask something of you all. Well, those to whom it matters. I have
> admitted to being an author, multi-published, and I am engaged upon a series of
> fiction novels---three initially---set between 1483 and about 1500. They will
> definitely be published by Robert Hale Ltd. (contracts exchanged, end of the
> world allowing) and the first two have been completed. Well into the third ms. I
> have been shamelessly picking brains here on the Forum, and would very much like
> to acknowledge this fact on the second book, the first having been dedicated to
> a dear friend. However, I do know that some of you loathe most Ricardian fiction
> as trivial and unhelpful to the cause. I donâ¬"t agree, but I will certainly
> respect such views. I am not a user, and would not wish anyone to think so. I am
> about to submit the final copy of this second book, so need to know if this
> particular acknowledgement is to be included.
> > The problem is that these novels will not meet with approval from all corners
> of the Forum. They are all very definitely pro-Richard, of course, and he
> features a great deal in the first and second books. The consequences of his
> reign carry into the third. But these titles are fiction, and thus written
> primarily to please and entertain. They follow facts, but there is also
> invention, and they are not intended to be reference books. A historian I am
> not. The dreaded word incest crops up, but not in the usual quarter and
> certainly not in a trivial or unpleasant way. I have written what I regard to be
> a very beautiful, moving, if imagined love story between two actual historical
> figures. But Iâ¬"m the author, and I would say itâ¬"s beautiful and moving, wouldnâ¬"t
> I?
> > I admire the Forum very much indeed, and the last thing I wish to do is
> dedicate a book to you all if most of you would rather I hied myself to a
> nunnery until itâ¬"s time to push up the daisies. So Iâ¬"m posting this. If you all
> ignore me, Iâ¬"ll take the hint. But if enough of you would like an overall
> acknowledgement of the Forum and its brilliant members, I will go ahead. No
> specific names, just the Forum in general. The last thing I want is to upset
> anyone or start something that will be contentious. I am open to (polite!)
> suggestions for the wording, and really do want to let readers know what a
> splendid lot you all are. But the decision is yours. Private responses are fine.
> > Even if you turn me down, I do hope youâ¬"ll still let me pick your
> brains?????????
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the
Forum...


> Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my
> favorite movies!

I adored him in Galaxy Quest. He was all wrong for Snape imo because he was
already far too old and too meaty - Snape is meant to be whip-thin and 31.
But Rickman is gorgeous in himself and also apparently a very nice man.
Years ago I collected the following from an article in a newspaper:

**************

Extract from the book 'Madame Depardieu and the Beautiful Strangers' by
theatre critic Antonia Quirke (pub. Fourth Estate). At this point in the
book, Ms Quirke had been trying to get various well-known actors and writers
to lecture at the Institute for Contemporary Arts.

*******

A discussion on child abuse, introduced with a reading from Lolita by an
actor, specifically Alan Rickman or possibly Jeremy Irons, as there was a
link after all, or maybe Alan Howard? I wrote to all three, and Howard said
yes. Rickman didn't even reply, though I'd pointed out that we'd spent 10
seconds in the same room after a radio broadcast several years before. 'You
won't remember me...' my letter had begun. He could have written back, 'You
won't forget me...' You won't forget him. When you're 80, you'll remember
Alan Rickman. Rickman is a control freak. He is Pacino-esque in repose, a
master of verbal control, sucking everything towards him with his tractor
beam. That he dedicated years of his life to a project about Franz Mesmer,
the hypnotist whose name gives us the word mesmerise, strikes you as an
interesting description of how well Rickman must know himself. He was an RSC
boy and took his time to relax into the possession of the space he seems to
need, where he does his best work, lolling like a leopard. And then later,
with a little more space, he came into his own, blowing the top off London's
head with his stage Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons. How can we sleep for
grief that Rickman never got the part in the movie? Malkovich was brilliant.
Rickman would have been better, would have become a megastar. Rickman loves
sentences. Rickman loves vowels - whenever he says a word beginning with a
vowel, such as 'I' or 'ever', I get a little shiver at the almost
consonantal edge he gives them. Because Rickman has the most beautiful voice
in the world. Mesmeric.

The late music writer lan MacDonald once drew a distinction between
McCartney's 'vertical' melodies and Lennon's 'horizontal' tunes: Penny Lane
vs I Am the Walrus. Rickman's melody is horizontal, unscrolling over long
passages of sheer beauty, often resolving on a tonic note that can sound
awful close to a weariness with his own power. And so everyone casts him as
a cobra, when his heavy-lidded drawl in fact contains all the colours of the
rainbow. His best movie? Sense and Sensibility, playing the romantic lead.
He's 60 now and you worry that the movies looked this gift horse in the
mouth somewhat. But I love him. We all love Alan Rickman - the Mongolian
eyes, the literate face, the gun-dog smile, which he peels back to reveal
teeth which actually glint. And quite honestly, I am so faint with desire
picturing him now that I can hardly type this.

So imagine my reaction when, a couple of days after the talk, I received an
apologetic message on my answering machine (he was filming Harry Potter and
couldn't get away) from the cobra leopard gun-dog himself that began, "Of
course I remember you, *silly*... '

I slept with the tape.

******************

If we're going to cast for a film about Richard, maybe Rickman could play
Kendall, or Hobbes. Iirc he's a similar type to the profile medal of
Kendall.

I think she has a crush - and who can blame her?
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 21:26
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...

 
From: Pamela Bain
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the
Forum...

> Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my
> favorite movies!

I adored him in Galaxy Quest. He was all wrong for Snape imo because he was
already far too old and too meaty - Snape is meant to be whip-thin and 31.
But Rickman is gorgeous in himself and also apparently a very nice man.
Years ago I collected the following from an article in a newspaper:

**************

Extract from the book 'Madame Depardieu and the Beautiful Strangers' by
theatre critic Antonia Quirke (pub. Fourth Estate). At this point in the
book, Ms Quirke had been trying to get various well-known actors and writers
to lecture at the Institute for Contemporary Arts.

*******

A discussion on child abuse, introduced with a reading from Lolita by an
actor, specifically Alan Rickman or possibly Jeremy Irons, as there was a
link after all, or maybe Alan Howard? I wrote to all three, and Howard said
yes. Rickman didn't even reply, though I'd pointed out that we'd spent 10
seconds in the same room after a radio broadcast several years before. 'You
won't remember me...' my letter had begun. He could have written back, 'You
won't forget me...' You won't forget him. When you're 80, you'll remember
Alan Rickman. Rickman is a control freak. He is Pacino-esque in repose, a
master of verbal control, sucking everything towards him with his tractor
beam. That he dedicated years of his life to a project about Franz Mesmer,
the hypnotist whose name gives us the word mesmerise, strikes you as an
interesting description of how well Rickman must know himself. He was an RSC
boy and took his time to relax into the possession of the space he seems to
need, where he does his best work, lolling like a leopard. And then later,
with a little more space, he came into his own, blowing the top off London's
head with his stage Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons. How can we sleep for
grief that Rickman never got the part in the movie? Malkovich was brilliant.
Rickman would have been better, would have become a megastar. Rickman loves
sentences. Rickman loves vowels - whenever he says a word beginning with a
vowel, such as 'I' or 'ever', I get a little shiver at the almost
consonantal edge he gives them. Because Rickman has the most beautiful voice
in the world. Mesmeric.

The late music writer lan MacDonald once drew a distinction between
McCartney's 'vertical' melodies and Lennon's 'horizontal' tunes: Penny Lane
vs I Am the Walrus. Rickman's melody is horizontal, unscrolling over long
passages of sheer beauty, often resolving on a tonic note that can sound
awful close to a weariness with his own power. And so everyone casts him as
a cobra, when his heavy-lidded drawl in fact contains all the colours of the
rainbow. His best movie? Sense and Sensibility, playing the romantic lead.
He's 60 now and you worry that the movies looked this gift horse in the
mouth somewhat. But I love him. We all love Alan Rickman - the Mongolian
eyes, the literate face, the gun-dog smile, which he peels back to reveal
teeth which actually glint. And quite honestly, I am so faint with desire
picturing him now that I can hardly type this.

So imagine my reaction when, a couple of days after the talk, I received an
apologetic message on my answering machine (he was filming Harry Potter and
couldn't get away) from the cobra leopard gun-dog himself that began, "Of
course I remember you, *silly*... '

I slept with the tape.

******************

If we're going to cast for a film about Richard, maybe Rickman could play
Kendall, or Hobbes. Iirc he's a similar type to the profile medal of
Kendall.

What a glorious story......love it!

On May 2, 2013, at 3:25 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Pamela Bain
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: An honest submission to the
Forum...

> Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my
> favorite movies!

I adored him in Galaxy Quest. He was all wrong for Snape imo because he was
already far too old and too meaty - Snape is meant to be whip-thin and 31.
But Rickman is gorgeous in himself and also apparently a very nice man.
Years ago I collected the following from an article in a newspaper:

**************

Extract from the book 'Madame Depardieu and the Beautiful Strangers' by
theatre critic Antonia Quirke (pub. Fourth Estate). At this point in the
book, Ms Quirke had been trying to get various well-known actors and writers
to lecture at the Institute for Contemporary Arts.

*******

A discussion on child abuse, introduced with a reading from Lolita by an
actor, specifically Alan Rickman or possibly Jeremy Irons, as there was a
link after all, or maybe Alan Howard? I wrote to all three, and Howard said
yes. Rickman didn't even reply, though I'd pointed out that we'd spent 10
seconds in the same room after a radio broadcast several years before. 'You
won't remember me...' my letter had begun. He could have written back, 'You
won't forget me...' You won't forget him. When you're 80, you'll remember
Alan Rickman. Rickman is a control freak. He is Pacino-esque in repose, a
master of verbal control, sucking everything towards him with his tractor
beam. That he dedicated years of his life to a project about Franz Mesmer,
the hypnotist whose name gives us the word mesmerise, strikes you as an
interesting description of how well Rickman must know himself. He was an RSC
boy and took his time to relax into the possession of the space he seems to
need, where he does his best work, lolling like a leopard. And then later,
with a little more space, he came into his own, blowing the top off London's
head with his stage Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons. How can we sleep for
grief that Rickman never got the part in the movie? Malkovich was brilliant.
Rickman would have been better, would have become a megastar. Rickman loves
sentences. Rickman loves vowels - whenever he says a word beginning with a
vowel, such as 'I' or 'ever', I get a little shiver at the almost
consonantal edge he gives them. Because Rickman has the most beautiful voice
in the world. Mesmeric.

The late music writer lan MacDonald once drew a distinction between
McCartney's 'vertical' melodies and Lennon's 'horizontal' tunes: Penny Lane
vs I Am the Walrus. Rickman's melody is horizontal, unscrolling over long
passages of sheer beauty, often resolving on a tonic note that can sound
awful close to a weariness with his own power. And so everyone casts him as
a cobra, when his heavy-lidded drawl in fact contains all the colours of the
rainbow. His best movie? Sense and Sensibility, playing the romantic lead.
He's 60 now and you worry that the movies looked this gift horse in the
mouth somewhat. But I love him. We all love Alan Rickman - the Mongolian
eyes, the literate face, the gun-dog smile, which he peels back to reveal
teeth which actually glint. And quite honestly, I am so faint with desire
picturing him now that I can hardly type this.

So imagine my reaction when, a couple of days after the talk, I received an
apologetic message on my answering machine (he was filming Harry Potter and
couldn't get away) from the cobra leopard gun-dog himself that began, "Of
course I remember you, *silly*... '

I slept with the tape.

******************

If we're going to cast for a film about Richard, maybe Rickman could play
Kendall, or Hobbes. Iirc he's a similar type to the profile medal of
Kendall.

It sounds extremely intriguing. Very best of luck with it.
Marie



--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Marie. No, it has nothing to do with Richard’s marriage, but commences after Anne’s death. He does not do anything wrong in that respect, but is very reluctant to give in to something he cannot deny. He’s free and a widower when he acknowledges what he feels. She (not EoY) is left alone and devastated after Bosworth, having to face a future without the man she loves so very much. But she’s not meek and mild, and confronts it all.
>
> Hope I’ve helped?
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
> Sounds a lovely idea, Sandra.
> Just one reservation, though. When you say "the dreaded word 'incest' crops up", can you elucidate? Are you meaning that it crops up in relation to Richard's marriage to Anne?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> what you're left with sounds like a very
good description of someone who was stressed out by constant niggling pain
which sometimes flared up into agonising cramp during the night.

Oh, and if his back was waking him up in the night he might well have been
jumpy and whirling about during the day, because he was so tired he was
seeing things. I don't neccessarily mean hallucinations, either - sometimes
when you're really tired you get "floaters" in the eyeballs, which look like
a black blot moving in your peripheral vision.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
.
.
.
<snipped>

> Btw Wednesday, who is an experienced calligrapher, has suggested that the reason Richard seems to have two different handwritings and signatures is possibly not (as I had suggested) because he sometimes authorised Kendall to sign for him, but because when his back was playing up he sometimes signed documents while standing up and therefore holding pen to paper at arm's length.


Wednesday writes:
While I do think he may have signed some documents standing up, I wouldn't presume to guess it was because his back was "playing up."

If I did, mea culpa, but I usually hesitate to make any pronouncement about the condition of Richard's back at any time during his life or death because I don't think we have the proper expert analysis to tell us the angle of his scoliosis. If someone rounds the back of a cat before they bury the cat, and someone digs up the cat's skeleton 200 years later, the digger doesn't t assume the curled-up cat walked like that in life. I think that's what we have, considering the propped-up angle of placement of Richard's body in the grave. Anyway, I digress.

Let me restate the standing-up theory, m'kay?

1. Richard's (and his scribes') hand is a variation on the gothic littera bastarda script that was so popular it was used for nigh on 300 years (with variations by many, many users).

2. The basic pen angle on this script (the angle at which you have to hold the quill to accommodate the script) is 45 degrees. This means the horizontal and curved strokes are made with the quill's point at 45 degrees; you don't have to turn the pen with this script as you do with other medieval scripts.

3. Claire, you indicated that some of Richard's signatures don't have the thin-thick horizontal and curved strokes -- they're more uniformly thin? If that's the case, then it means he wasn't holding the quill at an angle, but was holding it straight up. This happens when someone is standing up and the paper is laying flat, because it's hard to hold a quill at the proper angle when the surface it's on isn't angled and your hand isn't working at that angle as well.

This is why you see scribe's desks as being angled in old illustrations; it's a necessity when working with dip pens and drawing various scripts. You don't really write a script, you draw it, and it requires both the paper and the pen to be at a certain angle.

So yes, Richard could have been standing when he signed some documents because of the angle of the quill. But why he was standing...I've no idea.

Of course, he also could have been practicing to be the first medieval to use Copperplate script...but that's a whole other, time-traveling argument.

~Weds

For all of you Alan Rickman fans...have you seen the video he made a few years ago of a song called 'In Demand' with a group called Texas? It can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4-gNN8WRHo

He doesn't have to say a word and I am thudded.

How to relate this back to Richard? I think Rickman might make a good Morton in that movie we're all casting. The evil!Bishop of Ely was in his 60s when Richard became king.

Of course, he'd likely steal every scene he was in.

~Weds


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> You and me both.  I once saw him play Hamlet at the Riverside Studios - I have NO idea who else was in it.  It was in the round and we were about 3 feet away from him.
>  
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 20:53
> Subject: RE: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
>  
> Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my favorite movies!

I can tell you what a ding bat I was until my hip was replaced. On really bad days, when am had not slept the night before, I was virtually useless.

On May 2, 2013, at 5:04 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Claire M Jordan
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

> what you're left with sounds like a very
good description of someone who was stressed out by constant niggling pain
which sometimes flared up into agonising cramp during the night.

Oh, and if his back was waking him up in the night he might well have been
jumpy and whirling about during the day, because he was so tired he was
seeing things. I don't neccessarily mean hallucinations, either - sometimes
when you're really tired you get "floaters" in the eyeballs, which look like
a black blot moving in your peripheral vision.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> If someone rounds the back of a cat before they bury the cat, and someone
> digs up the cat's skeleton 200 years later, the digger doesn't t assume
> the curled-up cat walked like that in life.

Eh, but *nobody* is suggesting that the rounding of Richard's back, the
curling forwards to fit the grave, was so in life. Jo Appleby thought it
might be when she first saw him and that's why she said "hunchback" but that
would be kyphosis, and after closer examination all sources seem to be
agreed that he didn't have kyphosis. He had an exclusively lateral
scoliosis - the sharp C-shaped sideways deflection of the middle of his
spine - and short of them stuffing him into the grave and then employing an
elephant to jump up and down on his head and shoulders there's no way more
than a small fraction of that deflection is post-mortem. [I think it could
be if they put his skeleton into the grave after the flesh had rotted off,
because then his spine could whip about like a rope, but not while there was
still muscle holding the bones in place.]

Because he was buried half-sitting, gravity may have pushed the deflection
slightly further out to the side than it already was as his body decayed and
slumped down (assuming the earth wasn't very tightly packed around him), but
for that to happen it would already have to have been bulging out to the
side to start with. If his back had been lined up straight when he was
buried then gravity would just have pushed the column tighter together and
locked it in place, not popped it out to the side.

And the hypothetical cat wouldn't have abnormally wedge-shaped vertebrae
which had clearly been wedge-shapoed in life - Richard does.

> 3. Claire, you indicated that some of Richard's signatures don't have the
> thin-thick horizontal and curved strokes -- they're more uniformly thin?

Exactly. Some of his writing is carefully square and blocky with very thick
verticals, like you get in German blackletter (and yes, I know the
letter-forms are different, I'm talking about the impression created by
those wide jet-black strokes), and some of it is thin and scrabbly with
little difference between the thick and thin strokes. And it's not a
regular progression over time - it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.

Maybe he took "Loyalty" to mean the same to others. Probably he thought they will be grateful to him for the pardon? " possibly", " maybe", "could be".... I am sounding like Mc Weir;)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 2, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Ishita...I agree with you...I do believe he was in a difficult position with Stanley and Mrs Stanley, but Morton!....He should have been locked in a very secure place for a very, very long time...I wonder if Anne ever had a go at him over some of these decisions...eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Over and over gain we see him trusting or forgiving people who shouldn't have been forgiven. I feel he showed a lack of judgement in these occasions.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > > On the intrigue front strangely enough I've just said the same thing to Johanne. With 'usurping' kings it never goes away; it has to wait until the next generation.
> > >
> > > I see Richard's strength as the cause for his failure. He believed people shared the same high ideals as him. You can imagine Warwick giving him lectures on not trusting people so much. In fact, in his early years, those close to him didn't let him down; his squires at Barnet, Lovell, even Edward. And no doubt he made excuses in his head for Warwick, Montague and George, probably blaming it all on the Woodvilles. After 1475 this must have got harder, but he still must have believed in the supremacy of 'good' - hence his outrage when those he trusted (Hastings, Buckingham) betrayed him.
> > >
> > > Edward on the other hand, was a master at judging people, at using them for good or bad. He was what we'd call a people person and no doubt were he around today we'd make excuses for his weaknesses.
> > >
> > > Was Richard mature enough tor rule at this point in time? People were venturing beyond religion and good into what we now call politics. Edward, Louis XI and Warwick understood this. Did Richard? I'm not sure.
> > >
> > > Sorry to go on so much.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:09
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't disagree with your feelings on the subject.
> > >
> > > But it has occurred to me that given what I think I understand about
> > > Richard's approach to abstract principles of government (even-handed, I
> > > hope, is fair to say), he was never going to have had a quiet reign, and if
> > > not Bosworth, he could have looked forward to years of intrigue. And also,
> > > given what we now think he might have had to look forward to on the
> > > physical front, I have to agree with someone else who said perhaps this was
> > > the best outcome in the long run. What I'm interested in now is making
> > > more progress on seeing that his real accomplishments are as well-known as
> > > the Shakespearean Machiavellian character.
> > >
> > > Where he ultimately failed, I suppose, was in his attempts to manage along
> > > the lines of what I think of as the patronage system. Whether he wasn't a
> > > good judge of character (did he assume most people had the same principles
> > > he did?) or did recognize those who had their own agendas, but hadn't the
> > > knack of managing them is an interesting question.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I was thinking about that last night. This was a man, who had seen
> > > > the loss of his father and brother, and had to flee in the night to stay
> > > > alive. Then he watched his adored brother move from scrape to scrape, lost
> > > > another brother, and then when he finally found love, lost his son and
> > > > wife. I think the compounded grief and all the scheming and wrangling
> > > > around him, may have contributed. We cannot know that for *sure*, but it is
> > > > interesting speculation.
> > > >
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:50 AM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if Richard might have been more cautious if his wife and/or son
> > > > had still been alive?
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@
> > > > ...<mailto:bandyoi@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > > > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > > > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > > > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > > > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long
> > > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, you took the words out of my mouth!!! Learn from Brother Eddie!!
> > > > Live today and fight another day.......
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:
> > > > cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > OR do not at any time make any mad, brave do or die charges...To lose
> > > > a battle does not mean you lose the war...escape and ride away as fast as
> > > > you can...then regroup and make sure you wait for the men that York were
> > > > sending to you....As sure as eggs are eggs even if Weasle got himself
> > > > crowned that day it wouldnt be too long before people were remembering the
> > > > justice of Richard's short reign. Especially after all everyone who fought
> > > > on King Richard's side, an annointed king, were made traitors...even CC, no
> > > > admirer of Richard thought that was scandalous..eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > May I add the OBVIOUS Ò¢ââ¬a¬" win the battle!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:28 AM
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No.3. definitely happened. Someone who was connected to MB....the
> > > > plot failed, obviously, and perhaps that was around the time that Richard
> > > > put MB into the custody of her husband...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This begs the questions...What would MB have done with the boys if
> > > > the *rescue* attempt had been successful....?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > > > %40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@
> > > > <mailto:justcarol67@>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is a discussion on the Ricardian group about this
> > > > particular letter from Richard to his council around 29th July 1483. How do
> > > > you think this letter can be interpreted?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "By the king Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬹Ã&"RRÃ’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ \ Right
> > > > Reverend fader in god right trusti and welbiloved We grete you wele And
> > > > where as we /undrestande that certaine personnes of such as of late had
> > > > taken upon
> > > > > > > > > thaym the fact of an entrepriuse [snip]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The three interpretations I'm familiar with are
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) Someone tried to "rescue" the "princesses" from sanctuary. Who
> > > > would attempt that and why I can't guess.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Someone (probably Buckingham since as Constable of England he
> > > > had the authority to enter the Tower) killed the "princes" (clearly against
> > > > Richard's orders since he wants the perpetrators to be punished). Sharon
> > > > Kay Penman interprets the letter this way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) Someone tried and failed to "rescue" the "princes," either to
> > > > use them against Richard (Woodville supporters) or to kill them (Tudor
> > > > supporters). If this is the case, it would have prompted Richard to take
> > > > action to remove them from sight--and inspired Tudor's supporters to spread
> > > > the rumor that they were dead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I used to accept explanation 2 but am more and more inclined,
> > > > especially after reading Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson's books, to
> > > > accept explanation 3.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which Ricardian group are you referring to? Facebook? (I never go
> > > > there. Hate the format, for one.) Are they saying anything substantial or
> > > > of interest?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I first saw him when my spouse-to-be dragged me to see the first of the Die Hard films. I was amazed at how there was much more chemistry between him and Bonnie Bedelia, who played one of the hostages his Evil Common Criminal Guy character had taken hostage, than there was between her and Bruce Willis, the walking turd who played her estranged spouse, the Hero Cop.

I later found out that Rickman, who apparently had and has the greatest respect for Bedelia, forced the director/producer/etc. to drop a scene where his character sexually assaults her character -- he argued successfully that besides being stupid and vile, it would have made no sense for his character, who was extremely engaged in a battle of wits with Bruce Willis' character, to waste precious time raping someone. That just confirmed me in my admiration for the guy.






-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: An honest submission to the Forum...


For all of you Alan Rickman fans...have you seen the video he made a few years
ago of a song called 'In Demand' with a group called Texas? It can be found
here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4-gNN8WRHo

He doesn't have to say a word and I am thudded.

How to relate this back to Richard? I think Rickman might make a good Morton in
that movie we're all casting. The evil!Bishop of Ely was in his 60s when Richard
became king.

Of course, he'd likely steal every scene he was in.

~Weds


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
wrote:
>
> You and me both. I once saw him play Hamlet at the Riverside Studios - I
have NO idea who else was in it. It was in the round and we were about 3 feet
away from him.
> Â
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "" <>

> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013, 20:53
> Subject: RE: An honest submission to the Forum...
>
> Â
> Be still my heart, I love Alan Rickman. Truly, Madly, Deeply is one of my
favorite movies!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Many of us has quirky habits! Mine is twirling of hair and constantly doodling! Richard "might" have some mannerisms but how his playing with his dagger or biting his lips translates into his being evil really baffles me! They would take anything and translate it to evil.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 2, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Similarly with More, he was writing for an audience many
> > of whom will have seen Richard and maybe even met him, so his description of Richard has to have at least superficially resembled him, otherwise no-one would have believed him - unless his purpose was total satire and he had no intention of being believed. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that More was writing for a large audience, particularly not for people (such as Thomas Howard) who had seen or known Richard. Such people would immediately have been put off by his giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision some thirteen years, seven months, and I forget how many days off from the actual age at death. (No one who had known Edward would have thought that he died at fifty-three.) I think, based on the tone of the book and the fact that More never published (or even finished) the various versions that it was written for his amusement and that of his intellectual friends, in particular Polydore Vergil, whose history he partly echoes, partly exaggerates, and implicitly ridicules for its reliance on rumor.
>
> I realize that this theory is just that, a theory, but it stands up to examination better than either of the other possibilities: that More was writing a straightforward history (based in part on the biased testimony of Bishop Morton) or that he was writing a straightforward moral tract (which somehow includes the almost obscene dark comic element of Richard plotting the murder of children as he sits on the chamber pot). In other places, More's portrait is less satirical but equally imaginative, as in his version (quoted later in this post) of Richard's supposed playing with a dagger.
>
> At any rate, no contemporary chronicler, even the inconsistent Rous or the consistently hostile Croyland chronicler, mentions any such mannerism, and, in any case, the source is not More but Vergil, whom he is echoing. Vergil has him "woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest, and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were," a demonstration (along with the supposed biting of his lower lip) of the "crewell nature [that] did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase." The description of these actions occurs in the same paragraph as the details from Rous (short stature, deformed body, short face [probably Vergil's own mistranslation]) and Vergil's own addition: a "sowre countenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt," a description that we know to be false.
>
> In More, the tugging at the dagger becomes the basis for an imaginative scene (used all too memorably by Shakespeare): "Where he went abrode, his eyen whirled about, his body priuily fenced, his hand euer on his dager, his countenance and maner like one alway ready to strike againe, he toke ill rest a nightes, lay long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care & watch, rather slumbred then slept, troubled wyth feareful dreames, sodainly sommetyme sterte vp, leape out of his bed & runne about the chamber, so was his restles herte continually tossed & tumbled with the tedious impression & stormy remembrance of his abominable dede."
>
> I think we can dismiss the first description as an attempt at a primitive characterization by someone who never saw Richard and the second as a vivid, imaginative extension of this detail (and an unconfirmed rumor that Richard suffered from insomnia) into a vivid and wholly imaginary psychological portrait of a guilt-stricken murderer. Vergil, faced with limited resources and the necessity to write from a Tudor perspective, is embroidering on his sources. More is taking the ball and running with it, claiming that his information comes from "credible report of such as wer secrete with his chamberers"--a highly unlikely claim since these same "chamberers" date this disquiet to after the performance of the "abhominable deede" (the supposed murder of the "Princes"). Vergil has made it a nervous habit illustrating Richard's supposed cruelty; for More, it's an indication of his insecurity and fear of assassination (which, BTW, sounds more like Henry than Richard).
>
> I would give More's secret informers, from these chamberers who confided in unnamed informants who in turn confided in More to the "secret page" in the chamber pot scene, as much credence as I give to Lord Stanley's permonitory dream before Hastings's execution (in which "a bore with his tuskes so raced them both bi the heddes, that the blood ranne aboute both their shoulders")--exactly none.
>
> We really, really need to sort contemporary report (however potentially biased or unreliable since that can be assessed for itself) from later invention, starting by disregarding anything in More and Vergil that is not confirmed by earlier sources. Just my own opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.
>
> Carol
>
>

Considering that five hundred years ago gentlefolks' daggers did yeoman service as everything from quill-pen trimmers to fingernail cutters to cutlery in a pinch, his toying with it, if such he did, was probably not particularly unusual or unexpected. (And yes, women as well as men carried daggers and used them for much the same purposes.)

With everything the poor guy went through, I think I'd give him one of those squishy balls you're supposed to squeeze to relieve stress. That, and a truckload of antacids.







-----Original Message-----
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


Many of us has quirky habits! Mine is twirling of hair and constantly doodling!
Richard "might" have some mannerisms but how his playing with his dagger or
biting his lips translates into his being evil really baffles me! They would
take anything and translate it to evil.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 2, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Similarly with More, he was writing for an audience many
> > of whom will have seen Richard and maybe even met him, so his description of
Richard has to have at least superficially resembled him, otherwise no-one would
have believed him - unless his purpose was total satire and he had no intention
of being believed. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that More was writing for a large audience, particularly not for
people (such as Thomas Howard) who had seen or known Richard. Such people would
immediately have been put off by his giving Edward IV's age at death with
seeming precision some thirteen years, seven months, and I forget how many days
off from the actual age at death. (No one who had known Edward would have
thought that he died at fifty-three.) I think, based on the tone of the book and
the fact that More never published (or even finished) the various versions that
it was written for his amusement and that of his intellectual friends, in
particular Polydore Vergil, whose history he partly echoes, partly exaggerates,
and implicitly ridicules for its reliance on rumor.
>
> I realize that this theory is just that, a theory, but it stands up to
examination better than either of the other possibilities: that More was writing
a straightforward history (based in part on the biased testimony of Bishop
Morton) or that he was writing a straightforward moral tract (which somehow
includes the almost obscene dark comic element of Richard plotting the murder of
children as he sits on the chamber pot). In other places, More's portrait is
less satirical but equally imaginative, as in his version (quoted later in this
post) of Richard's supposed playing with a dagger.
>
> At any rate, no contemporary chronicler, even the inconsistent Rous or the
consistently hostile Croyland chronicler, mentions any such mannerism, and, in
any case, the source is not More but Vergil, whom he is echoing. Vergil has him
"woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest,
and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were," a demonstration
(along with the supposed biting of his lower lip) of the "crewell nature [that]
did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase." The description of these
actions occurs in the same paragraph as the details from Rous (short stature,
deformed body, short face [probably Vergil's own mistranslation]) and Vergil's
own addition: a "sowre countenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter
evydently craft and deceyt," a description that we know to be false.
>
> In More, the tugging at the dagger becomes the basis for an imaginative scene
(used all too memorably by Shakespeare): "Where he went abrode, his eyen whirled
about, his body priuily fenced, his hand euer on his dager, his countenance and
maner like one alway ready to strike againe, he toke ill rest a nightes, lay
long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care & watch, rather slumbred then
slept, troubled wyth feareful dreames, sodainly sommetyme sterte vp, leape out
of his bed & runne about the chamber, so was his restles herte continually
tossed & tumbled with the tedious impression & stormy remembrance of his
abominable dede."
>
> I think we can dismiss the first description as an attempt at a primitive
characterization by someone who never saw Richard and the second as a vivid,
imaginative extension of this detail (and an unconfirmed rumor that Richard
suffered from insomnia) into a vivid and wholly imaginary psychological portrait
of a guilt-stricken murderer. Vergil, faced with limited resources and the
necessity to write from a Tudor perspective, is embroidering on his sources.
More is taking the ball and running with it, claiming that his information comes
from "credible report of such as wer secrete with his chamberers"--a highly
unlikely claim since these same "chamberers" date this disquiet to after the
performance of the "abhominable deede" (the supposed murder of the "Princes").
Vergil has made it a nervous habit illustrating Richard's supposed cruelty; for
More, it's an indication of his insecurity and fear of assassination (which,
BTW, sounds more like Henry than Richard).
>
> I would give More's secret informers, from these chamberers who confided in
unnamed informants who in turn confided in More to the "secret page" in the
chamber pot scene, as much credence as I give to Lord Stanley's permonitory
dream before Hastings's execution (in which "a bore with his tuskes so raced
them both bi the heddes, that the blood ranne aboute both their
shoulders")--exactly none.
>
> We really, really need to sort contemporary report (however potentially biased
or unreliable since that can be assessed for itself) from later invention,
starting by disregarding anything in More and Vergil that is not confirmed by
earlier sources. Just my own opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.
>
> Carol
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links





t

Or a tot of rum......

On May 2, 2013, at 7:16 PM, "khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:



Considering that five hundred years ago gentlefolks' daggers did yeoman service as everything from quill-pen trimmers to fingernail cutters to cutlery in a pinch, his toying with it, if such he did, was probably not particularly unusual or unexpected. (And yes, women as well as men carried daggers and used them for much the same purposes.)

With everything the poor guy went through, I think I'd give him one of those squishy balls you're supposed to squeeze to relieve stress. That, and a truckload of antacids.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell

Many of us has quirky habits! Mine is twirling of hair and constantly doodling!
Richard "might" have some mannerisms but how his playing with his dagger or
biting his lips translates into his being evil really baffles me! They would
take anything and translate it to evil.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 2, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Similarly with More, he was writing for an audience many
> > of whom will have seen Richard and maybe even met him, so his description of
Richard has to have at least superficially resembled him, otherwise no-one would
have believed him - unless his purpose was total satire and he had no intention
of being believed. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that More was writing for a large audience, particularly not for
people (such as Thomas Howard) who had seen or known Richard. Such people would
immediately have been put off by his giving Edward IV's age at death with
seeming precision some thirteen years, seven months, and I forget how many days
off from the actual age at death. (No one who had known Edward would have
thought that he died at fifty-three.) I think, based on the tone of the book and
the fact that More never published (or even finished) the various versions that
it was written for his amusement and that of his intellectual friends, in
particular Polydore Vergil, whose history he partly echoes, partly exaggerates,
and implicitly ridicules for its reliance on rumor.
>
> I realize that this theory is just that, a theory, but it stands up to
examination better than either of the other possibilities: that More was writing
a straightforward history (based in part on the biased testimony of Bishop
Morton) or that he was writing a straightforward moral tract (which somehow
includes the almost obscene dark comic element of Richard plotting the murder of
children as he sits on the chamber pot). In other places, More's portrait is
less satirical but equally imaginative, as in his version (quoted later in this
post) of Richard's supposed playing with a dagger.
>
> At any rate, no contemporary chronicler, even the inconsistent Rous or the
consistently hostile Croyland chronicler, mentions any such mannerism, and, in
any case, the source is not More but Vergil, whom he is echoing. Vergil has him
"woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest,
and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were," a demonstration
(along with the supposed biting of his lower lip) of the "crewell nature [that]
did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase." The description of these
actions occurs in the same paragraph as the details from Rous (short stature,
deformed body, short face [probably Vergil's own mistranslation]) and Vergil's
own addition: a "sowre countenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter
evydently craft and deceyt," a description that we know to be false.
>
> In More, the tugging at the dagger becomes the basis for an imaginative scene
(used all too memorably by Shakespeare): "Where he went abrode, his eyen whirled
about, his body priuily fenced, his hand euer on his dager, his countenance and
maner like one alway ready to strike againe, he toke ill rest a nightes, lay
long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care & watch, rather slumbred then
slept, troubled wyth feareful dreames, sodainly sommetyme sterte vp, leape out
of his bed & runne about the chamber, so was his restles herte continually
tossed & tumbled with the tedious impression & stormy remembrance of his
abominable dede."
>
> I think we can dismiss the first description as an attempt at a primitive
characterization by someone who never saw Richard and the second as a vivid,
imaginative extension of this detail (and an unconfirmed rumor that Richard
suffered from insomnia) into a vivid and wholly imaginary psychological portrait
of a guilt-stricken murderer. Vergil, faced with limited resources and the
necessity to write from a Tudor perspective, is embroidering on his sources.
More is taking the ball and running with it, claiming that his information comes
from "credible report of such as wer secrete with his chamberers"--a highly
unlikely claim since these same "chamberers" date this disquiet to after the
performance of the "abhominable deede" (the supposed murder of the "Princes").
Vergil has made it a nervous habit illustrating Richard's supposed cruelty; for
More, it's an indication of his insecurity and fear of assassination (which,
BTW, sounds more like Henry than Richard).
>
> I would give More's secret informers, from these chamberers who confided in
unnamed informants who in turn confided in More to the "secret page" in the
chamber pot scene, as much credence as I give to Lord Stanley's permonitory
dream before Hastings's execution (in which "a bore with his tuskes so raced
them both bi the heddes, that the blood ranne aboute both their
shoulders")--exactly none.
>
> We really, really need to sort contemporary report (however potentially biased
or unreliable since that can be assessed for itself) from later invention,
starting by disregarding anything in More and Vergil that is not confirmed by
earlier sources. Just my own opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.
>
> Carol
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

t

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Letter to Russell


> Many of us has quirky habits! Mine is twirling of hair and constantly
> doodling! Richard "might" have some mannerisms but how his playing with
> his dagger or biting his lips translates into his being evil really
> baffles me!

Exactly. That's why I'm as sure as I can be that it's for real - because if
they were going to *invent* something with which to blacken his name, it
would be such a pathetically silly thing to invent. It makes far more sense
if it was a real thing which everybody who had seen him knew he did, and
they were trying to make Bad Richard seem more convincing by taking this
harmless habit and linking it in to their version of him.

They may well have exaggerated it, of course - it was probably something he
did when he was having an especially bad day, rather than all the time.