Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?

I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

I don't think I should say what I think of Susan Higginbottom



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 21:45
Subject: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?

 
I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

Ishita...can I pass on this one....I have read some of Higginbothan's stuff and quite honestly I would rather stick pins in my eyes...eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>

I walked away form this author after reading "The Stolen Crown," wherein she selectively contorted and ignored history to make Buckingham into her hero and Richard into a sociopath.

Don't wanna read her bloggy points.

~Weds


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/

Carol responds:

Suffice it to say that Susan Higginbotham does not include herself among Richard's "admirers" and holds the traditional view that he "imprisoned" his mother-in-law" and stole the Countess of Oxford's lands. Since both topics have been discussed in detail on this forum more than once, I'll say no more. I'm surprised that Susan made any concessions at all to Richard's generosity to women. She is, rather surprisingly, the librarian of the American branch of the Richard III Society. She's well read on Ricardian matters but rather predisposed to credit Tudor sources. I wouldn't recommend crossing swords with her unless you're at least as familiar as she is with the various chronicles and important primary materials. And even if you are, you're unlikely to convince her to change her views.

Carol

Love it.....come on over darling. I grew up in New Orleans so have a voodoo doll in which we can stick pins!

On May 28, 2013, at 4:13 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Ishita...can I pass on this one....I have read some of Higginbothan's stuff and quite honestly I would rather stick pins in my eyes...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>

She really does come across as spiteful...I had the misfortune of somehow arriving on her blog ,or whatever you call it ,one day and she was having a great time having a laugh about Richard's missing feet...cartoon and all....To tell you the truth I was shocked ...Yes we can sometimes find something humorous in the darkest times but my God it was quite sick...I felt sick to the pit of my stomach...and very angry. Eileen


--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I walked away form this author after reading "The Stolen Crown," wherein she selectively contorted and ignored history to make Buckingham into her hero and Richard into a sociopath.
>
> Don't wanna read her bloggy points.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
>

Judy, here. Can't address the other two complaints, but in re: the Dowager Countess of Oxford:

 mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's absolutely capable of a different interpretation, one that Hicks himself finds hard to hide. The Countess does seem to have been lending support (probably mainly financial) to her son the Earl of Oxford, who was planning an invasion! She was also brought before the King's Council at this period. Richard clearly (to my mind) interviewed her in his capacity as Lord Constable and tried to find a way to deal with the problem short of locking her up in the Tower, whch had already happened to her once in the early 1460s. Another suggestion he made was confining her in his own household at Middleham, but that was clearly unacceptable to her. In the event the agreement was that she would have the current feoffees (feoffees were nominal owners but really trustees to the use of the feoffor) of her lands pass their estate in the same to Richard. He thus became the new feoffee, agreeing to pay the Countess a fixed annual income from the proceeds of the rents,
to support a younger son who was studying at Cambridge, etc. With her death, Richard became the free owner of these lands.
> In order to be restored to these estates, Oxford had to demonstrate duress. This was easy to do if the treasonable context was kept out of the inquiry, as it was. In fact, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen Richard bullying or threatening the Countess.
> Marie
> P.S. This subject was discussed on the forum a while back, so you should be able to pick up the posts.
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:45 PM
Subject: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?



 
I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

How does it work Pammy? Do you stick someone's name on it...or just shut your eyes and think about that person...Yikes...it must be a temptation at times...hands hovering over pins...I could cheerfully do that to the person who kicked my elderly cat really bad last year...oooops of topic...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Love it.....come on over darling. I grew up in New Orleans so have a voodoo doll in which we can stick pins!
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 4:13 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ishita...can I pass on this one....I have read some of Higginbothan's stuff and quite honestly I would rather stick pins in my eyes...eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

She might have some valid points to make (or not, haven't investigated any
of the examples in her last post - probably the first & last I'll ever
read), but I suspect her inflammatory language turns off those not already
convinced of her point of view.

A J


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Judy, here. Can't address the other two complaints, but in re: the Dowager
> Countess of Oxford:
>
> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > It's absolutely capable of a different interpretation, one that Hicks
> himself finds hard to hide. The Countess does seem to have been lending
> support (probably mainly financial) to her son the Earl of Oxford, who was
> planning an invasion! She was also brought before the King's Council at
> this period. Richard clearly (to my mind) interviewed her in his capacity
> as Lord Constable and tried to find a way to deal with the problem short of
> locking her up in the Tower, whch had already happened to her once in the
> early 1460s. Another suggestion he made was confining her in his own
> household at Middleham, but that was clearly unacceptable to her. In the
> event the agreement was that she would have the current feoffees (feoffees
> were nominal owners but really trustees to the use of the feoffor) of her
> lands pass their estate in the same to Richard. He thus became the new
> feoffee, agreeing to pay the Countess a fixed annual income from the
> proceeds of the rents,
> to support a younger son who was studying at Cambridge, etc. With her
> death, Richard became the free owner of these lands.
> > In order to be restored to these estates, Oxford had to demonstrate
> duress. This was easy to do if the treasonable context was kept out of the
> inquiry, as it was. In fact, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen
> Richard bullying or threatening the Countess.
> > Marie
> > P.S. This subject was discussed on the forum a while back, so you should
> be able to pick up the posts.
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:45 PM
>
> Subject: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?
>
>
>
> I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what
> you think of the points made in the blog:
>
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol, oops! I left a comment on her blog! Now I am terrified about being chased down the cyber highway and be butchered:(

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 28, 2013, at 5:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Suffice it to say that Susan Higginbotham does not include herself among Richard's "admirers" and holds the traditional view that he "imprisoned" his mother-in-law" and stole the Countess of Oxford's lands. Since both topics have been discussed in detail on this forum more than once, I'll say no more. I'm surprised that Susan made any concessions at all to Richard's generosity to women. She is, rather surprisingly, the librarian of the American branch of the Richard III Society. She's well read on Ricardian matters but rather predisposed to credit Tudor sources. I wouldn't recommend crossing swords with her unless you're at least as familiar as she is with the various chronicles and important primary materials. And even if you are, you're unlikely to convince her to change her views.
>
> Carol
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Carol, oops! I left a comment on her blog! Now I am terrified about being chased down the cyber highway and be butchered:(

Carol responds:

Just ignore any response she makes and avoid her blogs in future unless you have low blood pressure and need to make it rise.

Carol

I hardly think that's likely, Ishita. Susan is well read but not, so far as I know, a vindictive chaser and butcher.

Karen Clark

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, oops! I left a comment on her blog! Now I am terrified about being chased down the cyber highway and be butchered:(
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 5:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Suffice it to say that Susan Higginbotham does not include herself among Richard's "admirers" and holds the traditional view that he "imprisoned" his mother-in-law" and stole the Countess of Oxford's lands. Since both topics have been discussed in detail on this forum more than once, I'll say no more. I'm surprised that Susan made any concessions at all to Richard's generosity to women. She is, rather surprisingly, the librarian of the American branch of the Richard III Society. She's well read on Ricardian matters but rather predisposed to credit Tudor sources. I wouldn't recommend crossing swords with her unless you're at least as familiar as she is with the various chronicles and important primary materials. And even if you are, you're unlikely to convince her to change her views.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on high without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy? Why doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
Marie


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita...can I pass on this one....I have read some of Higginbothan's stuff and quite honestly I would rather stick pins in my eyes...eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> >
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
Womankind?


> I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on high
> without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy? Why
> doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
Marie

... 'cos we'd eat her...?

Karen, it was my attempt at humor. I am pretty sure she isn't a homicidal maniac.
Gosh! I am going to stop wisecracking from now on! It seems to pass people right by and end up offending them!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 29, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "reswallie_girl" <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> I hardly think that's likely, Ishita. Susan is well read but not, so far as I know, a vindictive chaser and butcher.
>
> Karen Clark
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, oops! I left a comment on her blog! Now I am terrified about being chased down the cyber highway and be butchered:(
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On May 28, 2013, at 5:23 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I came across this blog post by Susan Higginbothan and wanted to hear what you think of the points made in the blog:
> > > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/richard-iii-friend-of-womankind/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Suffice it to say that Susan Higginbotham does not include herself among Richard's "admirers" and holds the traditional view that he "imprisoned" his mother-in-law" and stole the Countess of Oxford's lands. Since both topics have been discussed in detail on this forum more than once, I'll say no more. I'm surprised that Susan made any concessions at all to Richard's generosity to women. She is, rather surprisingly, the librarian of the American branch of the Richard III Society. She's well read on Ricardian matters but rather predisposed to credit Tudor sources. I wouldn't recommend crossing swords with her unless you're at least as familiar as she is with the various chronicles and important primary materials. And even if you are, you're unlikely to convince her to change her views.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on 'de-romanticising' Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument. She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of course. I read her, sniff and move on.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?

 

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
Womankind?

> I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on high
> without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy? Why
> doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
Marie

... 'cos we'd eat her...?

I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings,but I attended a talk by the Chairman of the West Midlands Branch of the Society ( no longer in existence) probably about 20 years ago which was about the Nevilles and Anne in particular. He was adament that Anne was a tough cookie. If I remember rightly he said words to the effect that she might well have been small (possibly based on the Rous drawing) but because of her Neville ancestry she would have been quite tough. Don't remember him mentioning Isabelbut he might have done.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us on our toes. She's done good woPk on the Nevilles and on 'de-romanticising' Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument. She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of course. I read her, sniff and move on.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?
>
>  
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
> > I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> > order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on high
> > without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy? Why
> > doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
> Marie
>
> ... 'cos we'd eat her...?
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'd agree with you if she used more neutral language. How she words her
arguments suggests she intends to rile people.

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us
> on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on 'de-romanticising'
> Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we
> should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with
> us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument.
> She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no
> justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings
> just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of
> course. I read her, sniff and move on.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
> > I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> > order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on
> high
> > without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy?
> Why
> > doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
> Marie
>
> ... 'cos we'd eat her...?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Must admit haven't visited her for a bit. In those days she was quite humorous. Must have gone to her head.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 15:55
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?


I'd agree with you if she used more neutral language.  How she words her
arguments suggests she intends to rile people.

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us
> on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on 'de-romanticising'
> Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we
> should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with
> us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument.
> She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no
> justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings
> just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of
> course. I read her, sniff and move on.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
> > I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> > order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on
> high
> > without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy?
> Why
> > doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
> Marie
>
> ... 'cos we'd eat her...?
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh - maybe it *is* her sense of humor, then, at work. Humor often doesn't
"do" well on the internet, given that we can't see the "speaker's" body
language, & our cultural contexts are different. Anyway, I won't be
revisiting her work any time soon.

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Must admit haven't visited her for a bit. In those days she was quite
> humorous. Must have gone to her head.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 15:55
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
>
> I'd agree with you if she used more neutral language. How she words her
> arguments suggests she intends to rile people.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us
> > on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on
> 'de-romanticising'
> > Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we
> > should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with
> > us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument.
> > She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no
> > justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were
> weaklings
> > just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of
> > course. I read her, sniff and move on.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> > Womankind?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> > Womankind?
> >
> > > I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> > > order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on
> > high
> > > without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy?
> > Why
> > > doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
> > Marie
> >
> > ... 'cos we'd eat her...?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Must admit thought for a long time she was Australian (sorry Australians!), just something about the tone, or because her books sell well in Australia.



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?


Oh - maybe it *is* her sense of humor, then, at work.  Humor often doesn't
"do" well on the internet, given that we can't see the "speaker's" body
language, & our cultural contexts are different.  Anyway, I won't be
revisiting her work any time soon.

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Must admit haven't visited her for a bit. In those days she was quite
> humorous. Must have gone to her head.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 15:55
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> Womankind?
>
>
> I'd agree with you if she used more neutral language.  How she words her
> arguments suggests she intends to rile people.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us
> > on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on
> 'de-romanticising'
> > Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I don't think we
> > should dismiss everything someone says just because they don't agree with
> > us. They put an alternative point of view and make us hone our argument.
> > She was, for example, one of the first to point out that there is no
> > justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were
> weaklings
> > just because they had the misfortune to die young. Just my opinion, of
> > course. I read her, sniff and move on.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 23:04
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> > Womankind?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
> > Womankind?
> >
> > > I agree. I am just turned off by the way she keeps a website simply in
> > > order to post her theological canon on the Wars of the Roses from on
> > high
> > > without leaving herself open to debate or contradiction. A bit bossy?
> > Why
> > > doesn't she come on the forum and join the fray?
> > Marie
> >
> > ... 'cos we'd eat her...?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
Womankind?


> I going to stick my neck out and say we need people like Susan to keep us
> on our toes. She's done good work on the Nevilles and on
> 'de-romanticising' Richard. And her novel on Margaret of Anjou was good. I
> don't think we should dismiss everything someone says just because they
> don't agree with us.

That's very true - but I'm suspicious of her because she cheats. There are
often cases where "no doubt" is a valid shorthand: if somebody says e.g.
"After riding a hundred miles in ten hours, no doubt X was tired and sore",
well, there really is very little doubt.

But when Susan says that "no doubt" Richard had a party of thuggish
enforcers with him when he went to see the Countess of Oxford, "no doubt"
means "I don't actually know, but I'm hoping to slip that fact past you".

Small and fierce?

But could any woman be soft if she'd been trained to run a castle when her husband wasn't at home, as well as when he was?

I know Anne had administrative help, but I've always seen her as someone in partnership with Richard. He was so often away, she couldn't have just sat around and done embroidery in the solar while waiting for supper to be served. She had to have her own authority, and I can't see Richard marrying some mealymouthed young thing -- especially the daughter of Warwick, and remembering that she signed herself not as Anne Neville, but as Anne Warwick...something I don't see mentioned often.

I can see her knocking heads together if someone, be it page or knight, was slacking off, when everyone had to pull together at Middleham just to survive through the winters.

~Weds

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings,but I attended a talk by the Chairman of the West Midlands Branch of the Society ( no longer in existence) probably about 20 years ago which was about the Nevilles and Anne in particular. He was adament that Anne was a tough cookie. If I remember rightly he said words to the effect that she might well have been small (possibly based on the Rous drawing) but because of her Neville ancestry she would have been quite tough. Don't remember him mentioning Isabelbut he might have done.

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> I'd agree with you if she used more neutral language. How she words her arguments suggests she intends to rile people.

Carol responds:

"People" being specifically Richard's "admirers" (her word). What riles me is the certainty with which she expresses her opinions, seldom acknowledging the existence of other viewpoints and never or almost never the possible validity of those viewpoints. Unfortunately, she's quite articulate and has many followers, fans who have read her award-winning fiction. To me, she's the perfect example of what happens when a writer takes Mancini and Croyland as unbiased recorders of exactly what happened.

By the way, she makes the frequently repeated error that Croyland doesn't mention the appointment of Richard of Gloucester as protector in Edward's will. Croyland *does* mention that codicil, in his usual indirect and ambiguous way:

"Long before his illness he had made his will, at very considerable length, having abundant means to satisfy it; and had, after mature deliberation, appointed therein many persons to act as his executors, and carry out his wishes. On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose."

The only codicil which could have resulted in "the ensuing tragedy"--in Croyland's view--was the appointment of Richard as Protector, which enabled Richard's "usurpation" (his word, used later) and prevented these "wise dispositions" from taking effect.

Even More and Vergil state directly and without qualification that Edward's will contained a codicil naming Richard as protector, and Croyland's characteristically vague statement can have no other meaning, but Susan is typical of moderate traditionalists in overlooking or ignoring it. I have tried once or twice to discuss points with her on the American forum but found her inflexible. She is, however, quite open to the defense of another maligned fifteenth-century figure, Margaret of Anjou.

Carol

Oh Weds, me too. Those gals were not just pampered princesses....they had a lot to take care of, including husbands!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?



Small and fierce?

But could any woman be soft if she'd been trained to run a castle when her husband wasn't at home, as well as when he was?

I know Anne had administrative help, but I've always seen her as someone in partnership with Richard. He was so often away, she couldn't have just sat around and done embroidery in the solar while waiting for supper to be served. She had to have her own authority, and I can't see Richard marrying some mealymouthed young thing -- especially the daughter of Warwick, and remembering that she signed herself not as Anne Neville, but as Anne Warwick...something I don't see mentioned often.

I can see her knocking heads together if someone, be it page or knight, was slacking off, when everyone had to pull together at Middleham just to survive through the winters.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
> I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklings,but I attended a talk by the Chairman of the West Midlands Branch of the Society ( no longer in existence) probably about 20 years ago which was about the Nevilles and Anne in particular. He was adament that Anne was a tough cookie. If I remember rightly he said words to the effect that she might well have been small (possibly based on the Rous drawing) but because of her Neville ancestry she would have been quite tough. Don't remember him mentioning Isabelbut he might have done.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Must admit thought for a long time she was Australian (sorry Australians!), just something about the tone, or because her books sell well in Australia.

Carol responds:

Alas, she's American (currently lives in North Carolina).

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
Womankind?

> "Long before his illness he had made his will, at very considerable
> length, having abundant means to satisfy it; and had, after mature
> deliberation, appointed therein many persons to act as his executors, and
> carry out his wishes. On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but
> what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his,
> the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose."

That's a lot more digestible than the version I was looking at the other
night, which was in the original spelling and made me go cross-eyed - do you
have a link to Croyland in this modernised spelling? Is he in the US
Society's book collection in this form?

> The only codicil which could have resulted in "the ensuing tragedy"--in
> Croyland's view--was the appointment of Richard as Protector,

Plus, you have to ask what sort of codicils Edward would want to add *on his
death bed*, if he had already made an elaborate will months or years before?
Surely the main thing which had changed, which was different from what he
had already carefully pre-planned (accto Croyland), was the fact that he was
dying before his son was of age, so you'd expect those emergency codicils to
deal with setting up a protectorship.

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I know Anne had administrative help, but I've always seen her as someone in partnership with Richard. He was so often away, she couldn't have just sat around and done embroidery in the solar while waiting for supper to be served. She had to have her own authority, and I can't see Richard marrying some mealymouthed young thing -- especially the daughter of Warwick, and remembering that she signed herself not as Anne Neville, but as Anne Warwick...something I don't see mentioned often.
>
> I can see her knocking heads together if someone, be it page or knight, was slacking off, when everyone had to pull together at Middleham just to survive through the winters.

Carol responds:

One of Richard's books on the ideal prince, "In de Regimine Principum" by Aegidius Colonna, states that a prince should "have an equal as his wife with whom he shares secrets and above all love the common good and the welfare of the state" (paraphrase from http://www.richardiii.net/2_1_0_richardiii.php ). Based on Richard's promises to EW regarding her daughters' marriages (which would be to their social equals, who would mistreat them at their peril), I think he took the sacred duties of marriage seriously, and I suspect that he chose Anne not only for her estates and the position she could give him in the North (and because she needed him as her protector) but because he knew that she fit this description of an ideal wife.

Carol

I think we knew that anyway.....especially Anne....what she went came through it's pretty obvious this girl was no wilting violet...common sense really...eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklin

Eileen I was thinking about you tonight when I was watching "The Winter King" particularly when they were talking about Bosworth and they showed the blood trickling down the sword. I thought that would probably have made you sad. It certainly made me feel sad.

My impression of Thomas Penn was that he was more sympathetic towards Richard than he was to the Weasle. He made a few "mistakes" said Richard had imprisoned the Princes and appeared to be definite that Perkin wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury but overall it was anti Henry Tudor. I didn't realise how awful Empson was but even he got the chop in the end. One thing he did clarify was the fact that he had pre-dated his reign and showed the Parliament Roll to prove it.

Mary

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I think we knew that anyway.....especially Anne....what she went came through it's pretty obvious this girl was no wilting violet...common sense really...eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklin
>

Hi Mary...I havent had the opportunity to watch the programme yet ..Ive got it on one of those box thingies....I hope..! .Yes your quite right Mary...you have me to a T as they say and I think we sing from the same songsheet as they say....Im certain that part will make me feel sad....and annoyed..How could it turned out so wrong? Such madness...

After Ive watched it hopefully can talk about it..Im looking forward to it....Im still reading Bosworth by Michael Jones...crickey...Im not sure what Im making of it all yet...Its all sooooo draining...:0) eileen






--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen I was thinking about you tonight when I was watching "The Winter King" particularly when they were talking about Bosworth and they showed the blood trickling down the sword. I thought that would probably have made you sad. It certainly made me feel sad.
>
> My impression of Thomas Penn was that he was more sympathetic towards Richard than he was to the Weasle. He made a few "mistakes" said Richard had imprisoned the Princes and appeared to be definite that Perkin wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury but overall it was anti Henry Tudor. I didn't realise how awful Empson was but even he got the chop in the end. One thing he did clarify was the fact that he had pre-dated his reign and showed the Parliament Roll to prove it.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I think we knew that anyway.....especially Anne....what she went came through it's pretty obvious this girl was no wilting violet...common sense really...eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklin
> >
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> That's a lot more digestible than the version I was looking at the other night, which was in the original spelling and made me go cross-eyed - do you have a link to Croyland in this modernised spelling? Is he in the US Society's book collection in this form?
[snip]

Carol responds:

I'm not sure what you mean by "the original form" since the chronicle was written in Latin. Possibly, you're looking at an older translation. Yes, the one I keep quoting is in the Online Library on the American branch website, along with More, Vergil, the Arrivall, Fabyan, bits of Holinshed, Commynes, and many other sources, some useful (privy purse accounts) and some merely annoying (propaganda ballads). The link to the online library, whose usefulness I can't overemphasize, is

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=57

Here's a direct link to the contents page of the Croyland chronicle:

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=494

You can go from there to the chapter you're looking for. It's arranged chronologically (unlike More's "history," which is very frustrating in that regard and many others).

Carol

Interesting though that in 'The Winter King' Thomas Penn did not say Richard killed the princes. All he said was that they were never seen again. The impression I got was that he rather liked Richard, and that his in depth study of Henry had not exactly made him a supporter of the founder of the Tudor dynasty!

Also interesting that he made it clear that H VIII was a nasty and ruthless piece of work from the start!

Sent from my iPad

I agree with you Mary. I think it was an extremely articulate, well-balanced programme; given the small amount of time in which he had to deliver a lot of material. He is obviously 'thinner' on the first part of the reign because his book concentrates on the second. Pity he couldn't have one more than one programme. And ... he did say Henry had the most slender claim to the throne and stressed that the Beauforts were barred. The de la Pole family tree showing H7's descent going straight to Owen Tudor was also v good. A historian to treasure.  H  



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013, 23:29
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?

 

Eileen I was thinking about you tonight when I was watching "The Winter King" particularly when they were talking about Bosworth and they showed the blood trickling down the sword. I thought that would probably have made you sad. It certainly made me feel sad.

My impression of Thomas Penn was that he was more sympathetic towards Richard than he was to the Weasle. He made a few "mistakes" said Richard had imprisoned the Princes and appeared to be definite that Perkin wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury but overall it was anti Henry Tudor. I didn't realise how awful Empson was but even he got the chop in the end. One thing he did clarify was the fact that he had pre-dated his reign and showed the Parliament Roll to prove it.

Mary

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I think we knew that anyway.....especially Anne....what she went came through it's pretty obvious this girl was no wilting violet...common sense really...eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklin
>

That's absolutely right. It is so tempting in these programmes to jazz them up by saying 'and rumour said ....'


________________________________
From: "pidgesherry@..." <pidgesherry@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 7:54
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the Womankind?

 

Interesting though that in 'The Winter King' Thomas Penn did not say Richard killed the princes. All he said was that they were never seen again. The impression I got was that he rather liked Richard, and that his in depth study of Henry had not exactly made him a supporter of the founder of the Tudor dynasty!

Also interesting that he made it clear that H VIII was a nasty and ruthless piece of work from the start!

Sent from my iPad

From: pidgesherry@...
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III -Friend of the
Womankind?


> Interesting though that in 'The Winter King' Thomas Penn did not say
> Richard killed the princes. All he said was that they were never seen
> again. The impression I got was that he rather liked Richard,

He certainly thought Richard had the better claim, although I wish he had
mentioned Titulus Regius - even if just to say "He replaced his nephews
after doubts were raised about the validity of their parents' marriage" -
rather than leaving an imporession that Richard had simply seized the
throne.

> Also interesting that he made it clear that H VIII was a nasty and
> ruthless piece of work from the start!

I particularly liked the bit at the end where he said that England was now
to be ruled by Henry VIII - "Lucky old England".

I think you will be pleased with Winter King although it would have been better if he had had more time.You will see what I mean. Know what you mean about Michael Jones' book, there were parts that I liked and parts that I didn't. I think that we have to thank him because he appears to have set off the search for the proper battlefield site even though Peter Foss had written about it quite a while before.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary...I havent had the opportunity to watch the programme yet ..Ive got it on one of those box thingies....I hope..! .Yes your quite right Mary...you have me to a T as they say and I think we sing from the same songsheet as they say....Im certain that part will make me feel sad....and annoyed..How could it turned out so wrong? Such madness...
>
> After Ive watched it hopefully can talk about it..Im looking forward to it....Im still reading Bosworth by Michael Jones...crickey...Im not sure what Im making of it all yet...Its all sooooo draining...:0) eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen I was thinking about you tonight when I was watching "The Winter King" particularly when they were talking about Bosworth and they showed the blood trickling down the sword. I thought that would probably have made you sad. It certainly made me feel sad.
> >
> > My impression of Thomas Penn was that he was more sympathetic towards Richard than he was to the Weasle. He made a few "mistakes" said Richard had imprisoned the Princes and appeared to be definite that Perkin wasn't Richard of Shrewsbury but overall it was anti Henry Tudor. I didn't realise how awful Empson was but even he got the chop in the end. One thing he did clarify was the fact that he had pre-dated his reign and showed the Parliament Roll to prove it.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we knew that anyway.....especially Anne....what she went came through it's pretty obvious this girl was no wilting violet...common sense really...eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know when she pointed out that there was no justification whatsoever in assuming that the Neville girls were weaklin
> > >
> >
>