Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed saying
that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
speculates too much for some folks' taste.

* Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she appear
to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who has
used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?

I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
digitized. Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if there's
any merit in making the original more widely available?

A J

From the BL online catalog --
Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (1461ý85: King Richard III
of England, 1483ý85)
Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108ý316
Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
Extent and Access:
<b>Extent: </b>1 item
Language: Latin
Anglo norman
Contents and Scope:
<b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman French
(145rý159v, 220rý221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of the
16th century (165vý166v, 224v, 244rýv, 252v, 253vý254r, 303r, 304r,
306rý312v, 313v)
History:
Origin: Origin: England
Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
Immediate Source of Acquisition:
Publications: Hicks, Michael, ýThe cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXIIý, in his
Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
Roses (London, 1991), pp. 281ý89

Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the second part coming out but long overdue.
 
I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair; indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with that, some here may not be able to.
 
I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post 1475?


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
Subject: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed saying
that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
speculates too much for some folks' taste.

* Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she appear
to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who has
used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?

I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
digitized.  Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if there's
any merit in making the original more widely available?

A J

From the BL online catalog --
Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (146185: King Richard III
of England, 148385)
Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108316
Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
Extent and Access:
<b>Extent: </b>1 item
Language: Latin
Anglo norman
Contents and Scope:
<b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman French
(145r159v, 220r221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of the
16th century (165v166v, 224v, 244rv, 252v, 253v254r, 303r, 304r,
306r312v, 313v)
History:
Origin: Origin: England
Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
Immediate Source of Acquisition:
Publications: Hicks, Michael, The cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXII', in his
Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
Roses (London, 1991), pp. 28189






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks. I did order her (old) book & pre-ordered the next one on
Amazon.co.uk - it's said to be due to be delivered in September.

I can deal better with rambling & discursive than I can with the vicious
language used Hicks.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
>
> I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
>
> I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
> Subject: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's
> book?
>
>
>
> The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed saying
> that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
> positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
> speculates too much for some folks' taste.
>
> * Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
> land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she appear
> to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who has
> used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?
>
> I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
> digitized. Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if there's
> any merit in making the original more widely available?
>
> A J
>
> From the BL online catalog --
> Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (1461ý85: King Richard III
> of England, 1483ý85)
> Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
> Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108ý316
> Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
> Extent and Access:
> <b>Extent: </b>1 item
> Language: Latin
> Anglo norman
> Contents and Scope:
> <b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman French
> (145rý159v, 220rý221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of the
> 16th century (165vý166v, 224v, 244rýv, 252v, 253vý254r, 303r, 304r,
> 306rý312v, 313v)
> History:
> Origin: Origin: England
> Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
> Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
> Immediate Source of Acquisition:
> Publications: Hicks, Michael, ýThe cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
> Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXIIý, in his
> Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
> Roses (London, 1991), pp. 281ý89
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

She's not vicious. I hated Hicks's Anne Neville



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 19:25
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


Thanks.  I did order her (old) book & pre-ordered the next one on
Amazon.co.uk - it's said to be due to be delivered in September.

I can deal better with rambling & discursive than I can with the vicious
language used Hicks.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
>
> I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
>
> I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
> Subject: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's
> book?
>
>
>
> The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed saying
> that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
> positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
> speculates too much for some folks' taste.
>
> * Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
> land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she appear
> to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who has
> used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?
>
> I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
> digitized.  Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if there's
> any merit in making the original more widely available?
>
> A J
>
> From the BL online catalog --
> Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (146185: King Richard III
> of England, 148385)
> Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
> Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108316
> Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
> Extent and Access:
> <b>Extent: </b>1 item
> Language: Latin
> Anglo norman
> Contents and Scope:
> <b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman French
> (145r159v, 220r221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of the
> 16th century (165v166v, 224v, 244rv, 252v, 253v254r, 303r, 304r,
> 306r312v, 313v)
> History:
> Origin: Origin: England
> Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
> Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
> Immediate Source of Acquisition:
> Publications: Hicks, Michael, The cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
> Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXII', in his
> Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
> Roses (London, 1991), pp. 28189
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Which raises my next question - is there anything in Hicks' writing worth
reading?

Or do we ignore his work, as being too tainted by partiality.

I really don't want to support his work by paying for it.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> She's not vicious. I hated Hicks's Anne Neville
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 19:25
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
>
>
> Thanks. I did order her (old) book & pre-ordered the next one on
> Amazon.co.uk - it's said to be due to be delivered in September.
>
> I can deal better with rambling & discursive than I can with the vicious
> language used Hicks.
>
> A J
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > second part coming out but long overdue.
> >
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live
> with
> > that, some here may not be able to.
> >
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > 1475?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
> > Subject: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's
> > book?
> >
> >
> >
> > The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed
> saying
> > that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
> > positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
> > speculates too much for some folks' taste.
> >
> > * Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
> > land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she
> appear
> > to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who has
> > used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?
> >
> > I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
> > digitized. Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if there's
> > any merit in making the original more widely available?
> >
> > A J
> >
> > From the BL online catalog --
> > Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (1461ý85: King Richard III
> > of England, 1483ý85)
> > Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
> > Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108ý316
> > Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
> > Extent and Access:
> > <b>Extent: </b>1 item
> > Language: Latin
> > Anglo norman
> > Contents and Scope:
> > <b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman
> French
> > (145rý159v, 220rý221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of
> the
> > 16th century (165vý166v, 224v, 244rýv, 252v, 253vý254r, 303r, 304r,
> > 306rý312v, 313v)
> > History:
> > Origin: Origin: England
> > Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
> > Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
> > Immediate Source of Acquisition:
> > Publications: Hicks, Michael, ýThe cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
> > Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXIIý, in his
> > Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
> > Roses (London, 1991), pp. 281ý89
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

We can trust Hicks when he tells us Richard's name, parents, dates of birth
and death.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
Wilkinson's book?


Which raises my next question - is there anything in Hicks' writing worth
reading?

Or do we ignore his work, as being too tainted by partiality.

I really don't want to support his work by paying for it.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> She's not vicious. I hated Hicks's Anne Neville
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 19:25
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
>
>
> Thanks. I did order her (old) book & pre-ordered the next one on
> Amazon.co.uk - it's said to be due to be delivered in September.
>
> I can deal better with rambling & discursive than I can with the vicious
> language used Hicks.
>
> A J
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > second part coming out but long overdue.
> >
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live
> with
> > that, some here may not be able to.
> >
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > 1475?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
> > Subject: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's
> > book?
> >
> >
> >
> > The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed
> saying
> > that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
> > positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
> > speculates too much for some folks' taste.
> >
> > * Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
> > land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she
> appear
> > to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who
> > has
> > used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?
> >
> > I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
> > digitized. Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if
> > there's
> > any merit in making the original more widely available?
> >
> > A J
> >
> > From the BL online catalog --
> > Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (1461-85: King Richard
> > III
> > of England, 1483-85)
> > Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
> > Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108-316
> > Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
> > Extent and Access:
> > <b>Extent: </b>1 item
> > Language: Latin
> > Anglo norman
> > Contents and Scope:
> > <b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman
> French
> > (145r-159v, 220r-221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of
> the
> > 16th century (165v-166v, 224v, 244r-v, 252v, 253v-254r, 303r, 304r,
> > 306r-312v, 313v)
> > History:
> > Origin: Origin: England
> > Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
> > Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
> > Immediate Source of Acquisition:
> > Publications: Hicks, Michael, 'The cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
> > Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXII', in his
> > Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
> > Roses (London, 1991), pp. 281-89
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yes, Stephen :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?



 
We can trust Hicks when he tells us Richard's name, parents, dates of birth
and death.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
Wilkinson's book?

Which raises my next question - is there anything in Hicks' writing worth
reading?

Or do we ignore his work, as being too tainted by partiality.

I really don't want to support his work by paying for it.

A J

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> She's not vicious. I hated Hicks's Anne Neville
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 19:25
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
>
>
> Thanks. I did order her (old) book & pre-ordered the next one on
> Amazon.co.uk - it's said to be due to be delivered in September.
>
> I can deal better with rambling & discursive than I can with the vicious
> language used Hicks.
>
> A J
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > second part coming out but long overdue.
> >
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live
> with
> > that, some here may not be able to.
> >
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > 1475?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 13:44
> > Subject: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's
> > book?
> >
> >
> >
> > The reviews on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk seem to be somewhat mixed
> saying
> > that she's used sources overlooked in the past,* that she paints a more
> > positive picture of Richard than her sourced indicate, & that she also
> > speculates too much for some folks' taste.
> >
> > * Hilary mentioned that Wilkinson does use Richard's account book of his
> > land transactions (which is what I'm "chasing" right now) - does she
> appear
> > to have done any independent analysis or has she relied on Hicks (who
> > has
> > used it several times)? does it seem to be good scholarship on her part?
> >
> > I see that the original is in the BL collection, but has not been
> > digitized. Has anyone else had a look (it won't be me) to see if
> > there's
> > any merit in making the original more widely available?
> >
> > A J
> >
> > From the BL online catalog --
> > Title: Register of Richard, duke of Gloucester (1461-85: King Richard
> > III
> > of England, 1483-85)
> > Collection Area: Western Manuscripts
> > Reference: Cotton MS Julius B XII, ff 108-316
> > Creation Date: 2nd half of the 15th century-2nd half of the 16th century
> > Extent and Access:
> > <b>Extent: </b>1 item
> > Language: Latin
> > Anglo norman
> > Contents and Scope:
> > <b>Contents: </b>Language(s): Latin and Middle English; Anglo-Norman
> French
> > (145r-159v, 220r-221r)Dated: 2nd half of the 15th century; 2nd half of
> the
> > 16th century (165v-166v, 224v, 244r-v, 252v, 253v-254r, 303r, 304r,
> > 306r-312v, 313v)
> > History:
> > Origin: Origin: England
> > Custodial History: Previously owned by: Hugh Fitzwilliam (d. 1577); Sir
> > Robert Cotton (d. 1631)
> > Immediate Source of Acquisition:
> > Publications: Hicks, Michael, 'The cartulary of Richard III as Duke of
> > Gloucester in British Library manuscript Cotton Julius BXII', in his
> > Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and their motives in the War of the
> > Roses (London, 1991), pp. 281-89
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the second part coming out but long overdue.
>  
> I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair; indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with that, some here may not be able to.
>  
> I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post 1475?

Carol responds:

I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.

Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned King."

If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.

Carol

Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
anybody here who knows?

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
> > ý
>
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
> > ý
>
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> King."
>
> If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

I researched this thinking things had moved on.
 
The National Archives A2A has only 30% of regional/local documents; mainly because record offices have not digitised themselves or more likely (because this affects A2A) have not digitised their indexes. The NA says there are no plans to list anymore, which is a massive blow, given that until someone does we honestly don't know what's out there. For example I found a reference to Richard being in Yorkshire in 1466 through the Nottinghamshire archives. Without A2A how would I have guessed where to go for that, and certainly not Notts.?
 
The National Archives itself does plan to do more but my guess is that most documents they hold which concern our main characters are well known - it's the first place researchers go. It's all right if you're doing family history and they're adding seamens' records.
 
My real moan with the NA is the lack of sophistication of their search fields. Unlike genealogical sites such as Ancestry and Findmypast, they don't do surname variations - so if you're looking for Stillington you have to look for Stllyngton, Stelyngton etc - who knows how someone might have chosen to spell him on one occasion. And then think of the variations on Gloucester.
 
I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't help you on European. I'm sure there must be stuff aplenty in Bruges, France and Spain. Does JAH as a linguist know of these Stephen?


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 4:50
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
Edward V comes to mind).  How complete is the catalog of the British
library manuscripts? What about local history sources?  How many of the
regional archives have their complete catalogs on line?  What about
Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
anybody here who knows?

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
> > Â
>
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
> > Â
>
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> King."
>
> If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I am sure he does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?



I researched this thinking things had moved on.

The National Archives A2A has only 30% of regional/local documents; mainly because record offices have not digitised themselves or more likely (because this affects A2A) have not digitised their indexes. The NA says there are no plans to list anymore, which is a massive blow, given that until someone does we honestly don't know what's out there. For example I found a reference to Richard being in Yorkshire in 1466 through the Nottinghamshire archives. Without A2A how would I have guessed where to go for that, and certainly not Notts.?

The National Archives itself does plan to do more but my guess is that most documents they hold which concern our main characters are well known - it's the first place researchers go. It's all right if you're doing family history and they're adding seamens' records.

My real moan with the NA is the lack of sophistication of their search fields. Unlike genealogical sites such as Ancestry and Findmypast, they don't do surname variations - so if you're looking for Stillington you have to look for Stllyngton, Stelyngton etc - who knows how someone might have chosen to spell him on one occasion. And then think of the variations on Gloucester.

I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't help you on European. I'm sure there must be stuff aplenty in Bruges, France and Spain. Does JAH as a linguist know of these Stephen?


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 4:50
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
anybody here who knows?

A J

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
> > Â
>
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
> > Â
>
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> King."
>
> If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
Wilkinson's book?


> I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> help you on European.

If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can have
a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
census you have to pay £15 for a day's access plus £1 per scan if you want a
keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be relevant
to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.

I suppose search by date (limited to the couple of months of the
protectorate) if possible, would be one approach.

In England last December I met a professor whose field of interest is
economic history related to horses; years ago he discovered the
centuries-worth of toll books which describe horses, & has made a career
out of them. Anyway, he mentioned just having been to Chatsworth, and
because of the daily usage fee of ý25, he took along his digital camera & a
tripod & copied 2083 documents in one day!

I've used a digital camera for years to copy pages of hard to get books
related to my horse research & can recommend it highly as a time saver &
way to capture stuff for later "digestion."

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
> > I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> > help you on European.
>
> If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can
> have
> a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
> census you have to pay ý15 for a day's access plus ý1 per scan if you want
> a
> keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be relevant
> to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.
>
>
>

Another thought - would it be fair to say that the local archivists know
their collections? And if so, would it be worth a survey asking what
records they have from the relevant time period?

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
> > I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> > help you on European.
>
> If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can
> have
> a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
> census you have to pay ý15 for a day's access plus ý1 per scan if you want
> a
> keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be relevant
> to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.
>
>
>

PS I've ordered your book - very cheap for  all the work that must have gone into it.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


 

I am sure he does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

I researched this thinking things had moved on.

The National Archives A2A has only 30% of regional/local documents; mainly because record offices have not digitised themselves or more likely (because this affects A2A) have not digitised their indexes. The NA says there are no plans to list anymore, which is a massive blow, given that until someone does we honestly don't know what's out there. For example I found a reference to Richard being in Yorkshire in 1466 through the Nottinghamshire archives. Without A2A how would I have guessed where to go for that, and certainly not Notts.?

The National Archives itself does plan to do more but my guess is that most documents they hold which concern our main characters are well known - it's the first place researchers go. It's all right if you're doing family history and they're adding seamens' records.

My real moan with the NA is the lack of sophistication of their search fields. Unlike genealogical sites such as Ancestry and Findmypast, they don't do surname variations - so if you're looking for Stillington you have to look for Stllyngton, Stelyngton etc - who knows how someone might have chosen to spell him on one occasion. And then think of the variations on Gloucester.

I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't help you on European. I'm sure there must be stuff aplenty in Bruges, France and Spain. Does JAH as a linguist know of these Stephen?

________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 4:50
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
anybody here who knows?

A J

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
> > Â
>
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
> > Â
>
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> King."
>
> If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yes I use a camera (I'm a photographer in another life) to copy stuff in the Records Offices. Would Chatsworth let him do that; in lots of places any sort of photography is forbidden, despite extortionate entry fees?
 
I agree with your any search by date but with A2A there are literally thousands of (mainly property) transactions in any period. What really irks me is the 60 -70% of stuff not put on by the ROs. Some of course refuse to do it because they can sell it to sites like Ancestry and findmypast. And who can tell what is important to 'us' and what isn't? You don't have to mention Richard to be relevant. Others, like Birmingham (not our period) are only just putting it on because they have to move libraries. Very little that was once free is now free, which is sad. It's potentially big money which is why the Society shouldn't really be struggling.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:11
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


I suppose search by date (limited to the couple of months of the
protectorate) if possible, would be one approach.

In England last December I met a professor whose field of interest is
economic history related to horses; years ago he discovered the
centuries-worth of toll books which describe horses, & has made a career
out of them.  Anyway, he mentioned just having been to Chatsworth, and
because of the daily usage fee of £25, he took along his digital camera & a
tripod & copied 2083 documents in one day!

I've used a digital camera for years to copy pages of hard to get books
related to my horse research & can recommend it highly as a time saver &
way to capture stuff for later "digestion."

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
> > I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> > help you on European.
>
> If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can
> have
> a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
> census you have to pay £15 for a day's access plus £1 per scan if you want
> a
> keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be relevant
> to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

My experience is that they vary. In my area, Northants are brilliant, Oxfordshire (as you'd imagine) are not bad but Warwickshire (very relevant to us) can sweep you aside with 'we haven't got round to that' or 'it isn't there' and then you find that it is. That's probably because some of their records are held by the Shakespeare Centre (who are on A2A) ands they have rather traditional, protective archivists. The other thing is how your librarian/archivist would know what is relevant. It's OK when it mentions say Richard (most would know he was important) but what about wills that mention our people of interest? For example when I was looking into the Hautes (because of Katherine) I noticed that 'my brother Catesby' was mentioned in at least two wills - must have been John Catesby by the way. How would your average archivist pick up the significance of that unless there was a Ricardian scholar in each branch. The answer is really continued
digitalisation of records with a good search facility. Only that way can we sniff out what we need.
 
But your suggestion is worth a try to start things off.   


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:41
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?


Another thought - would it be fair to say that the local archivists know
their collections?  And if so, would it be worth a survey asking what
records they have from the relevant time period?

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
> > I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> > help you on European.
>
> If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can
> have
> a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
> census you have to pay £15 for a day's access plus £1 per scan if you want
> a
> keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be relevant
> to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
Wilkinson's book?


> It's OK when it mentions say Richard (most would know he was important)
> but what about wills that mention our people of interest?

Or things like the Macgregor history I found, which just refer to "the
English king" and you have to cross-check the dates and locations (in this
case, iirc, a diplomatic delegation to Nottingham during the reign of James
III) to work out that it's Richard being referred to.

Thankyou.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?



PS I've ordered your book - very cheap for all the work that must have gone into it.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 11:46
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?




I am sure he does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

I researched this thinking things had moved on.

The National Archives A2A has only 30% of regional/local documents; mainly because record offices have not digitised themselves or more likely (because this affects A2A) have not digitised their indexes. The NA says there are no plans to list anymore, which is a massive blow, given that until someone does we honestly don't know what's out there. For example I found a reference to Richard being in Yorkshire in 1466 through the Nottinghamshire archives. Without A2A how would I have guessed where to go for that, and certainly not Notts.?

The National Archives itself does plan to do more but my guess is that most documents they hold which concern our main characters are well known - it's the first place researchers go. It's all right if you're doing family history and they're adding seamens' records.

My real moan with the NA is the lack of sophistication of their search fields. Unlike genealogical sites such as Ancestry and Findmypast, they don't do surname variations - so if you're looking for Stillington you have to look for Stllyngton, Stelyngton etc - who knows how someone might have chosen to spell him on one occasion. And then think of the variations on Gloucester.

I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't help you on European. I'm sure there must be stuff aplenty in Bruges, France and Spain. Does JAH as a linguist know of these Stephen?

________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 4:50
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
anybody here who knows?

A J

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> second part coming out but long overdue.
> > Â
>
> > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> that, some here may not be able to.
> > Â
>
> > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> 1475?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
>
> Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> King."
>
> If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, I suppose variability is to be expected. Seems as if prospecting by
date might be in order. Although, as with most prospecting, a lot of that
would probably turn out to be less than helpful.

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> My experience is that they vary. In my area, Northants are brilliant,
> Oxfordshire (as you'd imagine) are not bad but Warwickshire (very relevant
> to us) can sweep you aside with 'we haven't got round to that' or 'it isn't
> there' and then you find that it is. That's probably because some of their
> records are held by the Shakespeare Centre (who are on A2A) ands they have
> rather traditional, protective archivists. The other thing is how your
> librarian/archivist would know what is relevant. It's OK when it mentions
> say Richard (most would know he was important) but what about wills that
> mention our people of interest? For example when I was looking into the
> Hautes (because of Katherine) I noticed that 'my brother Catesby' was
> mentioned in at least two wills - must have been John Catesby by the way.
> How would your average archivist pick up the significance of that unless
> there was a Ricardian scholar in each branch. The answer is really continued
> digitalisation of records with a good search facility. Only that way can
> we sniff out what we need.
>
> But your suggestion is worth a try to start things off.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:41
>
> Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> Wilkinson's book?
>
>
> Another thought - would it be fair to say that the local archivists know
> their collections? And if so, would it be worth a survey asking what
> records they have from the relevant time period?
>
> A J
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
> <whitehound@...>wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine
> > Wilkinson's book?
> >
> > > I only know about Scottish and Irish records from Ancestry and I can't
> > > help you on European.
> >
> > If you can suggest any fields of research in the Scottish records I can
> > have
> > a look the next time I'm there. For births deaths and marriages and the
> > census you have to pay ý15 for a day's access plus ý1 per scan if you
> want
> > a
> > keeping copy, but the older records, including any which might be
> relevant
> > to Richard, are free to access plus I think 60p per scan.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

My local branch of the Society used to have talks by someone from Birmingham University on the WOTR in general and Richard in particular. He used to do a very good weekend course called "Richard Good or Bad?" If he was reading this I am sure that he would forgive me for saying that he was a bit of a Tudor lover but he was always quite impartial and willing to listen to other people's points of view. His only proviso was that, if you made a claim to Richard being good or bad you had to have evidence to back up your claim. He also said that while most of the national records that exist will probably have been discovered, though that isn't to say that they all have, however, there might be bits of evidence in smaller archives in various towns that have not yet been discovered.

While living in Bewdley in Worcestershire I discovered that Edward IV had given Bewdley a Charter because the Bewdley Bowmen had fought for Richard at Tewkesbury. It wasn't until I attended a talk by Michael Jones about Richard being the only Lord of his times to acknowledge the ordinary non noble soldiers that fought under his banner that I realised the significance of the Charter. There might well be other snippets of evidence out there in local record offices that we are not aware of.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
> seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
> Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
> library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
> regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
> Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
> searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
> in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
> anybody here who knows?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > second part coming out but long overdue.
> > > Â
> >
> > > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> > that, some here may not be able to.
> > > Â
> >
> > > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > 1475?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> > by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> > mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> > what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> > adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> > a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> > worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> > marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> > sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> > sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> > Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> > interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> > expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> > King."
> >
> > If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> > Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> > or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> > keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> > fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> > truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

This is the sort of thing I would love to see incorporated into a website
with "all things Ricardian."

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> My local branch of the Society used to have talks by someone from
> Birmingham University on the WOTR in general and Richard in particular. He
> used to do a very good weekend course called "Richard Good or Bad?" If he
> was reading this I am sure that he would forgive me for saying that he was
> a bit of a Tudor lover but he was always quite impartial and willing to
> listen to other people's points of view. His only proviso was that, if you
> made a claim to Richard being good or bad you had to have evidence to back
> up your claim. He also said that while most of the national records that
> exist will probably have been discovered, though that isn't to say that
> they all have, however, there might be bits of evidence in smaller archives
> in various towns that have not yet been discovered.
>
> While living in Bewdley in Worcestershire I discovered that Edward IV had
> given Bewdley a Charter because the Bewdley Bowmen had fought for Richard
> at Tewkesbury. It wasn't until I attended a talk by Michael Jones about
> Richard being the only Lord of his times to acknowledge the ordinary non
> noble soldiers that fought under his banner that I realised the
> significance of the Charter. There might well be other snippets of evidence
> out there in local record offices that we are not aware of.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
> > seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
> > Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
> > library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
> > regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
> > Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
> > searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be
> experts
> > in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
> > anybody here who knows?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she
> was
> > > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > > second part coming out but long overdue.
> > > > ý
> > >
> > > > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints,
> ceremonies
> > > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way
> though
> > > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example
> she
> > > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live
> with
> > > that, some here may not be able to.
> > > > ý
> > >
> > > > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > > 1475?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put
> off
> > > by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having
> a
> > > mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery
> and
> > > what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but
> condemned
> > > adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is
> only
> > > a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> > > worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> > > marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes
> the
> > > sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a
> mortal
> > > sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> > > Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> > > interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet
> that
> > > expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's
> "Maligned
> > > King."
> > >
> > > If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to
> the
> > > Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine
> letter
> > > or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into
> whose
> > > keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would
> have
> > > fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> > > truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

This is the sort of thing that puts you on a research 'trail' and is invaluable. I wish there were more such lectures.



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Josephine Wilkinson's book?

 

My local branch of the Society used to have talks by someone from Birmingham University on the WOTR in general and Richard in particular. He used to do a very good weekend course called "Richard Good or Bad?" If he was reading this I am sure that he would forgive me for saying that he was a bit of a Tudor lover but he was always quite impartial and willing to listen to other people's points of view. His only proviso was that, if you made a claim to Richard being good or bad you had to have evidence to back up your claim. He also said that while most of the national records that exist will probably have been discovered, though that isn't to say that they all have, however, there might be bits of evidence in smaller archives in various towns that have not yet been discovered.

While living in Bewdley in Worcestershire I discovered that Edward IV had given Bewdley a Charter because the Bewdley Bowmen had fought for Richard at Tewkesbury. It wasn't until I attended a talk by Michael Jones about Richard being the only Lord of his times to acknowledge the ordinary non noble soldiers that fought under his banner that I realised the significance of the Charter. There might well be other snippets of evidence out there in local record offices that we are not aware of.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Well, there must be something from the protectorate, although what I've
> seen fairly easily accessible, is meagre indeed (Grants from the reign of
> Edward V comes to mind). How complete is the catalog of the British
> library manuscripts? What about local history sources? How many of the
> regional archives have their complete catalogs on line? What about
> Scottish & Irish records? What about European archives - what little
> searching I've done on-line doesn't turn up much, but there must be experts
> in these areas who could advise about where to look for more - do we have
> anybody here who knows?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - just me, everyone pre-occupied with re-burial etc. Yes she was
> > sponsored to do research for her book and there is supposed to be the
> > second part coming out but long overdue.
> > > Â
> >
> > > I quite liked it - but it rambles; long diversions on saints, ceremonies
> > etc. It needed someone to advise her on structure. I like the way though
> > that she looks at Richard honestly (without condemning). For example she
> > doubts (and I agree with her) that the Anne marriage was a love affair;
> > indeed it could have been instigated by Anne. She also proposes that
> > Richard did have at least one mistress after his marriage. I can live with
> > that, some here may not be able to.
> > > Â
> >
> > > I wouldn't put her as a Hicks disciple at all. But it is hard to find
> > something new about the early bit. I wonder what she will conclude post
> > 1475?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I've only read the Kindle sample on Amazon, but I remember being put off
> > by her speculations regarding Richard's birth. As for Richard's having a
> > mistress after marriage, is she unaware of Richard's views on adultery and
> > what a colossal hypocrite he would be if he had a mistress but condemned
> > adultery in others--or of the Roman Catholic view that fornication is only
> > a venal sin (which can be confessed and forgiven through penance or, at
> > worst, time in Purgatory) whereas adultery, the violation of the holy
> > marriage vows, is a mortal sin (which cannot be forgiven and excludes the
> > sinner from Heaven)? Of course, murdering your nephews would be a mortal
> > sin and adultery as nothing compared to that, but I don't know where
> > Wilkinson stands on the supposed murder.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I came to Wilkinson expecting something
> > interesting, new, and worth reading, and the bit I read did not meet that
> > expectation. About the only book that *has* done so is Annette's "Maligned
> > King."
> >
> > If only someone would find a genuine and valuable document related to the
> > Protectorate--not a chronicler's biased observations but a genuine letter
> > or official record. I'm inclined to believe that Robert Morton, into whose
> > keeping as Master of the Rolls the original of Titulus Regius would have
> > fallen, really did destroy documents--the very ones we need to find the
> > truth. Straying from the topic--sorry.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>